This report is published by the Center for Media Justice (CMJ), based on the discussions at the

2010 Knowledge Exchange, a strategic convening and year-round project conducted in partnership
with Consumers Union (CU). Thanks to the staff of CU and CMJ for their planning, coordination,
and leadership of the Knowledge Exchange. Special appreciation goes to the Ford Foundation for
their support of this exciting project. This report was written by Aliza Dichter, based on extensive
note-taking by Michelle Schaefer. Much gratitude goes to the participants of the 2010 Knowledge
Exchange for their thoughtful conversations, to all the note-takers, and to the staff of CMJ and CU
for additional editing.

Published online and in print by the Center for Media Justice, March 2011.

The Center for Media Justice

436 14th Street, Suite 500, Oakland, CA 94612
wwww.centerformediajustice.org
phone: 510.698.3800
email: info@centerformediajustice.org

Permission is granted to use, copy, distribute, adapt, remix, and/or modify the contents of this
document for noncommercial purposes. Please cite the Center for Media Justice as the original
source if distributing or reusing sections, pages, images or the whole booklet. Please contact CMJ,
if you can, to let us know how you are using and reusing this material­—we welcome your feedback.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0
United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-sa/3.0/us or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco,
California, 94105, USA.
Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

6 CONNECTING THE ISSUES: Life, inequality and telecommunications

9 POLICY BREAKDOWN: What’s hot, why it matters

12 TAKING ACTION: Current projects, strategic opportunities

15 SPEAKING OUT: Key tips for making the case

17 WORKING TOGETHER: Collaborating for the long haul

18 STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS: Turning connections into action

19 RESEARCH AND POLICY-MAKING: Data needs, racial impacts

20 RACIAL EQUITY IMPACT STATEMENTS: A tool for policy making

21 STATE-LEVEL POLICY ACTION: Opportunities, challenges, strategies

23 APPENDIX A: Glossary

27 APPENDIX B: Resources

28 APPENDIX C: Knowledge Exchange attendees

29 APPENDIX D: Summarized agenda

Introduction
Note: highlighted words throughout are defined in the glossary, Appendix A.

From September 13 through 16, 2010, fifteen leaders from organizations around the U.S. met in
Washington, D.C., for the fifth annual Knowledge Exchange, a strategy convening hosted by the
Center for Media Justice (CMJ) and Consumers Union (CU). Participants included representatives
from the Media Action Grassroots Network (MAG-Net), the Media and Democracy Coalition, and
other social justice and public-interest groups. (A full participant list is available in Appendix C.)

The Knowledge Exchange is an annual convening to strengthen the strategic effectiveness,

collaboration, and impact of the movement for media reform and justice. Through presentations,
roundtables, working groups, popular education sessions, trainings, and meetings with government
officials, participants produced the following key outcomes:

• New joint projects and campaign strategies to advance an agenda for Internet freedom,
subsidies for Internet access, and protections for Internet and mobile phone users
• A collectively identified set of best practices in collaboration and building constituencies
• Sharper skills in strategic framing and collaborative communications around Net Neutrality
• Stronger partnerships between regional, Beltway, and grasstops leaders
• Relationships with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and key members of
Congress

This report is a brief summary of the Knowledge Exchange, written for participants and to share
with the field. It reflects the open and frank discussions that took place during the convening,

Photo: Staff from Media and Democracy Coalition, Center for Social Inclusion, Free Press, Main Street Project,
Media Access Project, and Consumers Union discuss strategy in a breakout session.

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 1
as well as the ease of communication among the group. The words in this report are quoted,
paraphrased, and combined from presentation and discussion notes. The document includes
ideas raised by individuals as well as collectively agreed-upon points. Overall, the 2010 Knowledge
Exchange reflects just one moment in time in the midst of ongoing, overlapping conversations on
these issues.

This document is one of several publication projects emerging from the 2010 Knowledge Exchange
that will be produced by CMJ. Strategy ideas, tools, case studies, and more will be available to our
network members online through the MAG-Net website, www.mag-net.org.

Facts, statistics, and other data are as of September 2010. For up-to-date media/telecom policy
and campaign information, visit www.centerformediajustice.org and www.mag-net.org. Convening
agenda, participant list, and other related information can be found in the appendices, included at
the end of the report.

Photo: Christopher Mitchell of the Minnesota-based Institute for Local Self-Reliance joins the Knowledge
Exchange participants for a Skype conversation about community broadband networks.

2
Executive Summary
The Knowledge Exchange 2010:
Major Outcomes and Results

The Knowledge Exchange 2010 produced several major outcomes, with related activities and
products. Below is a list of significant outcomes of this convening, and the specific activities that
emerged as a result.

• New regional and national leaders were engaged

Leaders from The Utility Reform Network (TURN), Center for Social Inclusion, Thousand Kites,
Native Public Media, and the National Hispanic Media Coalition participated for the first time in
the Knowledge Exchange, resulting in deeper relationships with Beltway media reform partners
and an expansion of their efforts and analysis surrounding broadband policy.

• Best practices for alliance building were adopted

Both the Media and Democracy Coalition and the Media Action Grassroots Network have
integrated principles for alliance building, developed initially at the Knowledge Exchange.

• Additional, timely infrastructure for strategic collaboration was created

A task force to develop collaborative strategy on Universal Service Fund (USF) reform has
been established, coordinated by the Media and Democracy Coalition, with participation from
the Center for Media Justice, the Benton Foundation, Media Access Project, the Leadership
Council on Civil and Human Rights, the Consumer Federation of America, Free Press,
Consumers Union, the American Civil Liberties Union, Public Knowledge, and the Urban
League.

• New relationships were developed and existing relationships deepened, resulting in

many diverse collaborative events

™ Future of the Internet Town Hall

On November 16, 2010, the Media Literacy Project partnered with the Center for Media
Justice, Free Press, Native Public Media, and the FCC Office of Native Affairs and Policy
to hold the second national Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet. Over 400 New
Mexicans were in attendance for this event, which was held at the National Hispanic
Cultural Center. Key speakers included FCC Commissioner Michael Copps; Andrea
Quijada, Media Literacy Project; Loris Taylor, Native Public Media; Geoffrey Blackwell, FCC
Office of Native Affairs and Policy; Rep. Antonio Maestas, New Mexico District 16; and
amalia deloney, the Center for Media Justice.

Nearly twenty community members—including youth, elders, city council members, and
immigrants—offered testimony on the importance of an open Internet. An additional 100
people from across the country watched the webcast event and participated in an online
conversation.

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 3
 ™ National Broadband Symposium
On December 7, 2010, the Center for Social Inclusion and the Center for Technology
Innovation and Community Engagement held a National Symposium on Community-Scale
Broadband Infrastructure in Washington, D.C. The symposium convened an interdisciplinary
group of nationally recognized scholars, practitioners, and policy advocates to discuss
strategies for reenvisioning the frames driving the national policy discourses on broadband.
Panelists included the Media Mobilizing Project’s Todd Wolfson, a previous Knowledge
Exchange participant. Other symposium participants included representatives of the Media
and Democracy Coalition, Media Access Project, and Center for Media Justice.

™ Racial Justice Delegation to the FCC

Working together with Free Press, the Center for Media Justice organized and led a racial
justice delegation to the FCC to meet with Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and Chief of Staff
John Giusti from Commissioner Michael Copps’ office. The delegation included members
of CMJ’s Media Justice Strategy Tank: James Rucker, Color of Change; Joaquin Guerra,
Presente.org; Khalil Shahyd, the Center for Social Inclusion; Steven Renderos, Main Street
Project; Joe Torres, Free Press; Ivan Roman and Jessica Gonzales, the National Hispanic
Media Coalition; and amalia deloney, the Center for Media Justice.

The visit took place on December 8, 2010, just before the Net Neutrality sunset rules went
into effect, and provided a final opportunity for Strategy Tank members to speak directly
with the FCC regarding our core concerns with the proposed Net Neutrality rules, and to
advocate for stronger wireless protections.

™ Joint MetroPCS Letter

On January 10, 2011, the Center for Media Justice—together with Free Press, Media
Access Project, New America Foundation and Presente.org—sent a Notice of Ex-parte
to the FCC en re: MetroPCS. Together these organizations expressed concern over the
company’s recent changes to its mobile broadband service plans, and the detrimental
impact it would have if companies are allowed to selectively block or cap the use of some
Internet content. The changes, these groups believe, were in violation of the Commission’s
recently adopted open Internet rules.

™ Joint Congressional Strategy

Working with the Media and Democracy Coalition, MAG-Net anchors embarked on a joint
in-district congressional strategy. These visits provided an opportunity for MAG-Net leaders
and regional members to speak directly with representatives and/or their staff about the
importance of strong open Internet protections and the need to support the FCC and their
December rules.

To date, the Media Literacy Project, New Mexico, has met with with Representative Martin
Heinrich; the Media Justice League, Texas, with Representative Charles Gonzalez; Media
Alliance, California, with staff of Representatives Barbara Lee and Nancy Pelosi; Reclaim
the Media, Washington, with Representatives Rick Larsen and Norm Dicks.

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 4
 ™ Internet Strikes Back Collaborative Action
Based on ideas formed at the Knowledge Exchange, together with Public Knowledge and
others, the Center for Media Justice supported the Internet Strikes Back online campaign
with the goal of mobilizing constituents to tell Congress to stand up for Net Neutrality.
Through a national day of action on February 17, 2010, the Internet Strikes Back website
received 5,790 unique page views and 8,640 total views; 1,160 individuals went on to view
the Public Knowledge mobile action alert sign-up page, and 83 percent successfully called
their member of Congress.

™ Concrete Partnerships for State Policy Change

Both the Media and Democracy Coalition and the Center for Media Justice initiated
partnerships with the Progressive States Network. Progressive States Network is now a
member of MAG-Net. They were also recently featured on a broadband policy panel at
CMJ’s Media Justice Leadership Institute in February 2011.

™ Forthcoming: Regional-Beltway Partnership for Phone Justice in Minneapolis

On April 27, 2011, Main Street Project, in collaboration with the Center for Media Justice,
Consumers Union, and Center for Rural Strategies, will host a Phone Justice Policy Day.
This Minnesota-based gathering will bring together twenty Minnesota regional MAG-Net
members and partners for an interactive and hands-on workshop and policy roundtable
to collectively determine a healthy policy agenda for the state’s wireless, calling card, and
Universal Service Fund reform needs. Local funders and elected officials invited include
Headwaters Foundation, the Otto Bremmer Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, and
Senator Al Franken, Senator Amy Klobuchar, Representative Keith Ellison, and Minnesota
Secretary of State Mark Ritchie.

• A strategy for community telecommunications governance was launched

Encouraged by staff from the United Church of Christ’s Office of Communications, the Center
for Media Justice and Garlin Gilchrist II of the Center for Community Change successfully
submitted an application to serve on the FCC Diversity Advisory Committee.

Based on the recommendation of Geoffrey Blackwell, Chief of the FCC’s Office of Native Affairs
and Policy, amalia deloney of the Center for Media Justice was invited to apply to join the FCC
Consumer Affairs Bureau Advisory Board.

Decisions on these applications are pending.

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 5
Connecting the Issues:
Life, Inequality, and Telecommunications

This panel provided a forum to connect issues of broadband equity to larger issues of democracy,
social justice, and economic empowerment. Below are brief summaries of the key discussions that
took place.

Presenters: Steve Savner, Center for Community Change;

Shireen Mitchell, Digital Sisters; Khalil Shahyd, Center for
Social Inclusion; Traci Morris, Native Public Media; Mark
KEY POINTS:
“Why” must influence “how” in
Hugo Lopez, Pew Hispanic Center. Many participants
the fight for broadband
shared specifics on why telecommunications policies
matter to their communities.
Broadband—high-speed Internet—
has become standard for some but
Getting a quality education in the twenty-first is unavailable for others.
century increasingly depends on Internet access
The ability to complete homework assignments, follow When markets—i.e., currently
textbook references, or access distance learning in this era powerful corporations—decide
depends upon sufficient access to the Internet. Yet, in both who gets to use networks and
urban and rural communities, poor schools get frighteningly equipment, for what purpose and
little benefit from the school and library subsidies intended at what cost, there are dangerous
to make the Internet more accessible and affordable. At economic, racial, and public policy
the same time, there is persistent inequity in which families implications.
have useful Internet access at home. This is compounded
by the threats to free speech online, which limits the Internet and telecom networks are
creativity of student learning and exacerbates an already critical components of local and
uneven playing field for low-income students and students national infrastructure, requiring
of color. Broadband access, funding subsidies, and Net significant government involvement,
Neutrality protections are key to reducing existing race investment, and regulatory oversight.
and income gaps in education quality.

Internet use has become essential to survival

The quality of civic life, health, employment, and communication depends upon the ability to use
the Internet, yet millions of low-income people are digitally excluded because Internet costs are too
high or services are not available where they live. For example, many rural communities cannot take
advantage of much-needed telemedicine; many people on tribal lands don’t even have basic phone
service.

Shireen Mitchell of Digital Low-income communities are increasingly left in

Sisters noted that even those the cold without the broadband access, functional
with broadband access cannot equipment, and digital training needed to participate in
necessarily utilize it if they are society today. Across generations, for women, low-
stuck with outdated equipment. income people, rural residents, and communities of

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 6
color, these resources are not sufficiently available and affordable. Instead of providing quality
access at reasonable rates, corporations are deepening the disenfranchisement of major
sectors of the population.

The effectiveness of the U.S. workforce is undermined by lack of broadband adoption

Broadband adoption—the use of high-speed Internet—allows workers to gain digital skills, leading
to economic equity and opportunity. Effective broadband policy can help generate more and better
jobs, and more skilled workers, especially in communities where those have been scarce. Fights for
accessible broadband must be connected to fights for living wages, better working conditions,
and broader and more open Internet access in all workplaces. Affordability and Net Neutrality—
access without restrictions—must be the standard.

Without better Internet and telecommunications policies, poverty and disparity will grow
The U.S. functions in a knowledge economy, where digital inclusion equals social and economic
inclusion; poverty rates ratchet up in offline populations. One in seven Americans lives in poverty,
and poverty rates in communities of color are substantially higher: 25 percent in African-American
communities and 22 percent in Latin@ communities. With an absence of equity-based Internet
regulation, market-based racism is restructuring many communities and creating the biggest
increase in poverty this country has seen in decades.

Economic and community development requires rules of the road for broadband providers
To strengthen communities and support opportunity, the U.S. needs to ensure that an equity
framework for broadband is incorporated into economic development plans—that is, that
social goals are part of the macroeconomy (the economy as a whole). Subsidies to low-income
communities for communications need to be expanded. Subsidy criteria in programs such as
the Universal Service Fund need to be updated in terms of eligibility and affordability, as well as

Photo: Knowledge Exchange participants were hosted by the new Office of Native Affairs and Policy at the FCC.
Traci Morris, Native Public Media and Geoffrey Blackwell, Chief, FCC Office of Native Affairs and Policy Consumer
and Governmental Affairs Bureau.

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 7
which communication forms they cover. Communities need widespread, affordable broadband
networks to attract jobs. Neighborhoods and municipalities need to be able to cultivate
innovation and local networks. This requires openness and Net Neutrality.

Use of technology is changing, inequity persists—there is now a mobile digital divide

All people are increasingly relying on mobile and wireless technologies for communications.
Texting is now the main form of electronic communication among young people. But the digital
divide is now expanding to cell phones, smartphones, and other mobile devices. Simply owning a
form of mobile technology is not necessarily the functional equivalent to having affordable, useful
high-speed Internet access. Without support for low-income users and meaningful consumer
protections, the digital divide gets worse.

Research shows that African-Americans and Latin@s use texting extensively. Currently, 88 percent of
African-Americans use cell phones, 20 percent of which are smartphones. Latin@s are a $257 billion
telecommunications services market. Thirty percent of Latin@s do not have a landline and rely only
on mobile phones. English-speaking Latin@s use mobile Internet at a higher rate than whites.

But corporations are not yet required to provide affordable rates, fair billing, or open, unrestricted
mobile networks. Wireless and mobile networks can bridge gaps where there is no other
broadband access, but only if those networks are truly accessible.

Native communities have the worst telecommunications services in the U.S.; radio is still a lifeline.
Thirty five percent of people on tribal lands don’t have access to 911 service, and that number
increases to closer to 50 percent in the Navajo Nation. Only 69 percent of tribal members have
Internet access. Although Native communities are among the highest adopters and users of
technology and rely heavily on wireless networks, they pay double the national average for their
services.

Disenfranchised people and their families find problems compounded by communication limitations.
The U.S. has 2.4 million people incarcerated in prisons, mostly in rural areas. Extremely high prison
phone costs and restrictions on Internet uses make it difficult to communicate with family, make job
contacts, and get parole. People held in immigrant detention centers face similar obstacles.

These digital divides represent an enduring gap in participation in democracy and communications.
Simply having access to the technology, with no control over its use, and without a regulatory
framework that ensures equity and freedom of use, will only codify and entrench gaps in wealth
and education.

While full adoption of broadband, affordable services, and open networks won’t solve these
problems, this policy agenda is essential if there is to be progress. For a stable, healthy society,
everyone needs the ability to access and use communication networks.

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 8
Policy Breakdown:
What’s Hot, Why It Matters

Presenters: Gigi Sohn, Public Knowledge; Joel Kelsey, Free Press; Mark Cooper, Consumer
Federation of America; Parul P. Desai, Consumers Union; Ben Lennett, New America Foundation;
Christopher Mitchell, Institute for Local Self Reliance; Traci Morris, Native Public Media. Strategic
discussions included visits with the USDA Rural Utility Service, the FCC, and congressional offices.

Reclassification
For up-to-date What it means: How to categorize broadband Internet so the Federal
fact sheets and Communications Commission has regulatory authority over Internet
resources, visit access. This could be a major policy overhaul to recognize that the
mag-net.org. Internet is now as essential to the public as phones and electricity, but
the industry and political opponents of equity are fighting to prevent the
FCC from reestablishing its authority to oversee communications.

What we could win:

• A strong foundation for future regulation of the Internet as necessary infrastructure
• Emergency communications services and quality access for all communities
• Phone and Internet subsidies for low-income people
• Federal responsibility to ensure networks are accessible, open, and affordable
• Government monitoring of corporate behavior with a mandate to enforce regulations

But we could lose, and then:

• Government abandons regulation, giving in to industry threats about economic impacts
• Communities have no recourse against corporate Internet blocking, overcharging, and other
abuses

Net Neutrality
What it means: The Internet should be open—companies providing access (ISPs, telcos)
should not be allowed to control or limit how people use their networks. There is a very well-
organized industry effort using a combination of scare tactics and donations to persuade people,
governments, and traditional civil rights groups to believe—incorrectly—that requiring Net Neutrality
would hurt jobs and investment and be bad for the public.

What we could win:

• Penalties for Internet and cell phone companies that censor or control what people do online
• Required operating principles for network owners, including transparency and non-discrimination
• Full access to online audiences/participants for independent media and community groups,
and full access to independent media and community groups for audiences/participants

But we could lose, and then:

• Networks restrict broadband speeds, favor some content, and control what Internet users can do
• Small business development and community innovation and investment is blocked
• Texting for nonprofit communications remains expensive and subject to censorship

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 9
Consumer protections
What it means: Having rules and enforcement to protect against corporate abuses by cell phone
and mobile device companies. Industry pushes the claim that “self-regulation” works and thus
consumer protections are unnecessary.

What we could win:

• The end of early-termination fees and other contract traps from network companies
• The ability for people to use any phone on any network
• Requirements that phone and Internet companies make bills less confusing
• Penalties for companies that don’t provide their advertised fees or speeds
• Required automatic alerts to mobile customers before they go over limits on minutes and plans

But we could lose, and then:

• Predatory pricing continues and worsens; people are caught in contract and billing traps
• We are without oversight or enforcement to address how companies treat customers

Universal Service Fund (USF) reform

What it means: The USF is a program that issues funds, subsidies, and requirements to ensure
that all people have access to traditional phone networks. It sets low-income rates and requirements
for infrastructure-building. The USF should be updated and expanded to apply to broadband
and mobile phones. The opposition wields industry threats to deinvest in infrastructure and uses
language of “giveaways to the undeserving” to oppose necessary updates to the program.

What we could win:

• Subsidized cell phone and Internet access for low-income people
• Funds to ensure rural, tribal, and low-income communities have Internet and cell phone service
• Expanded e-rates for Internet access in school and libraries (including in tribal areas)
• Start-up money for community networks that can then become self-sustaining

But we could lose, and then:

• The USF would not be expanded to help people access broadband
• Low-income people face existing and increased challenges in connecting to families, jobs,
health care, and social services
• We lose benefits of successful programs providing service for poor people (e.g., Lifeline, Link-up)
• Telcos impose unreasonable data limits and overage charges on cell phones and other services
• Companies won’t be forced to invest in infrastructure and lower costs to consumers

The Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP)

What it means: BTOP refers to grants made for the purpose of nationwide deployment and
adoption of high-speed Internet, as mandated by the National Broadband Plan. The public needs to
push for more grants, monitor where funds go, and advocate for our communities to receive funds.

What we could win:

• High-speed Internet infrastructure, access, and widespread use throughout the U.S.
• Digital inclusion programs, increased community technology training, and telework centers
• High-speed networks built in areas that couldn’t afford it otherwise

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 10
• New economic opportunities, self-reliance for local communities, better job availability,
revitalization of rural areas

But we could lose, and then:

• Funds don’t go to meaningful projects and groups get insufficient and poorly sustained support
• Business development becomes the only measure of success
• Private capital and investment gets scared off or pulled in reaction to government plan
• Projects develop only where there are well-off communities and profit potential

Community networks
What it means: Co-op groups and nonprofits working with municipalities to provide local
broadband infrastructure, and neighborhoods using technology innovation to support community
development.

What we could win:

• Reliable, useful, affordable, collaborative communications networks
• More choices in service providers, forcing companies to compete for their business
• Policy and programs specialized to the community and its nonprofits and small businesses
• Economically self-sufficient co-op models
• Community engagement, local innovation and services, creativity, technical literacy
• Concrete models that can be used to improve regulation and provide visionary, inspirational
examples

But we could lose, and then:

• State lawmakers give in to industry pressure and make it harder to establish networks (18 states
already have)
• Phone companies can block community cell networks by locking handsets
• Neighborhood and local emergency broadband networks can be prevented by corporate ISPs

Photo: Khalil Shahyd, Center for Social Inclusion, and Shireen Mitchell, Digital Sisters, discuss
Internet access in the African-American community.

11
Taking Action:
Current Projects, Strategic Opportunities

Below are some of the projects that Knowledge Exchange groups are working on and planning.
This list is to help participants follow up with each other and reach out to partners.

Organization Current and Planned Projects

Center for Media • Creating a shared calendar for KE and MAG-Net groups
Justice • Holding meetings with vulnerable consumers, stakeholders, allies
(national) (including on USF)
• Doing advocacy and movement research
• Continuing to file federal policy comments

Center for • Supporting economic impact research

Social Inclusion • Putting together a national broadband working group around the
(national) E-Gap program, which tracks infrastructure spending in relation to
disenfranchised communities
• Creating a data visualization tool to track where broadband funding is
going versus where it is needed
• Convening a broadband symposium in December in D.C.

Color of Change • Mobilizing online members to speak out in favor of Net Neutrality
(national)

Consumers • Running a campaign to require cell phone companies to notify

Union customers about billing
(national) • Doing regulatory filings, public outreach, advocacy on consumer
protections and USF

Latin@s for • Building and mobilizing Latin@ leaders committed to the shared agenda
Internet Freedom and narrative
(national) • Strengthening existing infrastructure and collaboration within organized
Latin@ communities for long-term progressive advocacy on media policy

Main Street • Doing more local-level recruitment of other organizations, especially labor
Project • Focusing on state policy opportunities and relationships
(Minnesota) • Helping out with the “propaganda machine”

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 12
Media and • Working with MAG-Net on D.C. meetings with congresspeople
Democracy • Doing outreach to small businesses that received BTOP grants
Coalition • Continuing to file policy comments with FCC and communicate policy
(national) goals to Congress
• Helping coordinate USF convening, webinar on USF for local groups,
eligibility filing
• Organizing groups on model state legislation on cell phones
• Researching economic effects of policies and talking points

Media Access • Filing comments in favor of setting a federal floor for low-income
Project subsidies
(national) • Executing community ideas
• Convening to build relationships, especially with new groups

Native Public • Continuing to file comments with federal policymakers

Media (Indian • Working on USF strategy and participating as tribal member on USF
Country, national) board
• Advocating for a one-time tribal broadband fund

New America • Looking for partnerships; want to be tech resource for non-Beltway
Foundation groups
(national) • Working in coalitions on transparency and truth in billing
• Collaborating on a USF convening
• Continuing work on tribal issues around broadband
• Collecting data regarding broadband speeds

Media Literacy • Setting up congressional visits

Project • Having conversations with Progressive States Network
(New Mexico) • Creating a cell phone literacy kit and looking for funding for its
distribution

People’s • Developing a shared hooks and opportunities calendar

Production • Supporting a multimedia parody on the history of broadband
House (New York,
D.C., Los Angeles)

Public • Identifying congressional partners, strategies for congressional visits

Knowledge • Working on framing of reclassification, lining up regulation for deep,
(national) long-term change
• Continuing to focus on text messaging openness, cell phone
regulations

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 13
 Thousand Kites • Improving prison communications with some sort of toll-free or Skype
(Kentucky and line
national) • Using Flip cameras to make videos of people who have loved ones in
prison
• Producing a caller-driven radio show that is broadcast into the prisons
• Creating more hip videos to push the agenda

The Utility • Working to increase public participation at public utility commission and
Reform Network business meetings
(Callifornia)

WHAT WE CAN DO: Strategic Opportunities

Actionable ideas that emerged from 2010 Knowledge Exchange discussions

Movement-building and collaboration

• Formalize Latin@s for Internet Freedom and establish other related initiatives
• Create formal principles for alliance building and local-national partnership
• Create infrastructure for calendaring, policy tracking, and issue-specific collaborations on
wireless and Universal Service Fund reform
• Expand the scope of Knowledge Exchange participants beyond usual suspects
• Maintain a collective dashboard for information: BTOP implementation, state policies

National policy (FCC, Congress, federal agencies, etc.)

• Stay in better touch with government contacts – set up planned check-ins
• Connect local groups to government to work on broadband policy in the context of the
farm bill, education budget, and other related issues
• Develop viral audio/visual products that deepen and provide nuance to the narrative on
broadband
• Do a collective action for next Future of the Internet town hall with those that can’t be
there; use video feed again
• Set up D.C. and in-district visits, education for new congresspeople
• Hold USF conference with social justice groups with clear stake, but unfamiliar with issues
• Support civil disobedience in use and creation of networks to help push better regulation
• Have a plan to affect the way the FCC makes data available (i.e., get them to distribute in
non-electronic formats as well as via PDF)

State-level actions (see page 21)

• Advocate for broadband legislation in states such as Minnesota
• Set up calls to state legislatures, with Progressive States Network, about cell phone
consumer problems

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 14
Speaking Out:
Messaging Tips for Telecommunications
Policy Advocacy

Grassroots perspectives on communicating with the FCC

1. Feel more confident about being advocates even though not all of us have law degrees
2. Realize that the more powerful you become the more weight your information carries
3. Involve communities and tribes in all aspects of policy making and decision making
4. Focus not only on what is politically possible but also on rearranging existing political institutions
5. Unearth the power of relationships and constituency

Framing challenges and opportunities

These have been identified by Knowledge Exchange participants based on their experience meeting
with FCC staff and other policymakers.

• Since job creation is a very important priority,

there is a need for data and stories to show KEY ISSUE FRAMES
policies will lead to, not hinder, job creation. surfaced in the Spitfire workshop
A business-centric approach resonates.
Economically driven and economics-supported Equal access
arguments also work very well. Innovation
Economic growth
• Consumer interests and business interests Prosperity
are perceived as in opposition to each other, Good for business
requiring some balance and trade-offs. Opportunity
Policymakers don’t see empathy coming from Critical/vital infrastructure
either side. Freedom
Nationalism
• The carriers have won on slogans, saying Safety and security
that regulation will deter investment and job Protection
creation. Data doesn’t really matter. They Individualism
position the open Internet as being against People’s/personal choice
small businesses and competition, bad for Community benefit
consumers and jobs.
Possible themes to tap:
• According to the FCC, its goals are to “spur • Distrust of a few companies
innovation [and] use the Internet to empower controlling the Internet
people and improve the world.” Some FCC staff
• People hate their cable
are very interested in media literacy.
companies

• The public-interest side needs better simple,

tight, and strong messages. Consider when to

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 15
 emphasize race, gender, and income disparities and when to use an approach that foregrounds
access versus non-access.

• We need to improve communications about consumer protections and public safety. Show that
consumer protections help people to be less vulnerable and more comfortable online, leading
to wider adoption.

• Emphasize compelling local stories with follow-up solutions—for example, when there’s a few
hundred yards separating haves and have-nots, and municipalities could bridge those gaps but
aren’t allowed to.

Photo: Knowledge Exchange participants meet with Jonathan Adelstein, head of the USDA Rural Utility Service.
Working Together:
Collaborating for the Long Haul

Kristen Zimmerman and Julie Quiroz-Martínez from the Movement Strategy Center led a session
on collaboration. Steven Renderos, amalia deloney, Ana Montes, and other Knowledge Exchange
participants reflected on best practices from their work. These are merged and briefly excerpted
here. More of the collected principles and practices will be made available at www.mag-net.org.

Know who people are, and start with listening

• Go to communities; convene meetings in communities.
• Work with existing networks; build on the capacity, infrastructure, and accomplishments of
other groups.
• Build out from a core group that has a large amount of trust with each other and a similar
stance.

Plan to use time for learning, relationships, and outcomes

• Build genuine relationships and connections early, before asking people to do something.
• Implement programming and protocols to understand existing power relationships and
dynamics.
• Create strong, stable partnerships based in mutual benefit. Fundraise together. Share
resources.

Engage multiple constituencies; build multiracial alliances

• Figure out what brings you together and what is common and different in your communities.
• Bring the topic home, give people time to talk through it, and make sure leaders understand the
issues.
• Make the project relevant to what people are working on: articulate the effects on them,
connect to the issues they’re working on.

Support each others’ leadership and community connections

• Honor the local perspective and individual groups’ strengths and perspectives.
• Plan ahead; figure out how decisions, resources, roles, and strategy work within the alliance.
• Support leadership from youth of color.
• Include tribes in policy decisions.
• Consider how local groups can share contacts without giving over whole lists to national allies.

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 17
Strategic Communications:
Turning Connections Into Action

Piper Kerman of Spitfire Strategies, James Rucker of Color of Change, and KE participants shared
best practices. Spitfire’s tools are available online, along with other KE resources. See Appendix B
for further information.

Online organizing and mobilizing is most effective under certain conditions

• There is a clear theory of change, and it is part of a larger campaign plan.
• People are given an opportunity to act right away on information they see every day.
• There are connections to offline action, local groups, local events, and meet-ups.

Be conscious of the drawbacks of online organizing

• Lack of personal relationships with members challenges the sustainability of the organizing.
• Brand vulnerability: it’s easier for participants to walk away from online campaigns.
• Groups want faith that community members will be safe when they are sent places.

Key points for successful online—and offline—communications

• Target your audience: the right people to do the right action at the right time.
• Know the decision makers, and who they will listen to. Map out positions and motivations.
• Explain the issue clearly and briefly, and convey the gravity of the situation.
• Prioritize simplicity over nuance.
• Email is just one part of the picture; use videos, music, TV, radio, and mainstream and ethnic
press
• Use words, values, and examples that resonate for people. Respect your audience.
• Focus on overcoming people’s barriers to action once they care.
• Celebrate wins, show momentum, highlight various groups. Avoid fear and shame.

Photo: Members of the Center for Media Justice Strategy Tank participate in a racial justice delegation to the FCC, where they
met with Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and John Giusti, Commissioner Michael Copps’ Chief of Staff; left to right: Joe Torres,
Ivan Roman, Jessica Gonzalez, Joaquin Guerra, Steven Renderos, and Khalil Shahyd.
Research and Policy Making:
Data Needs, Racial Impacts

Ten current research needs

1. Debunk the argument that regulating the Internet will scare off business and private investment.
2. Develop a power analysis for regulation at the state level.
3. Take a closer look at model state policies and other policies in various regions.
4. Check on stimulus money, see if it is going to the right projects. (FCC staff recommended this.)
5. Examine how the FCC does surveys, who responds, and what data was collected.

6. Address current data problems:

• How to set standards (e.g., for affordability and accessibility) with limited data
• Telecom companies say one thing to Wall Street another to the FCC
• Policymakers are using old data, and companies collect data for their own purposes

7. Get data regarding impact of Net Neutrality and broadband legislation on jobs/employment
to address the problem that online/mobile networking is seen as a social activity and not as
furthering the economy/jobs.
8. Survey mobile Internet use among Spanish-speaking Latin@s.
9. Generate more information, research, and data on tribal telecommunications.
10. Conduct research for equity impact statements (see page 20):
• Document patterns of discrimination over time to create space for more regulation
• What are the requirements for government contracts? Are there fines that go to support
better enforcement to expand the growing public infrastructure?
• Assess FCC impact statements for small businesses

Photo: Knowledge Exchange participants meet with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and his chief of staff, Rick Kaplan.
Racial Equity Impact Statements:
A Tool for Policy Making

Presented by Makani Themba-Nixon, Praxis Project. Related materials on why, when, and how to
use the tools are online at www.mag-net.org and www.transforming-communities.org.

Purpose of impact statements

• To assess what a policy will do if passed, why it shouldn’t pass, and what the alternative should be.
• To interrupt the usual process of policy making and include those that are affected in the
decision making.
• Set a normative process for before policy is implemented, versus an after-the-fact evaluation.
• Address the challenge of evaporating policy—there is less equity-based policy than there was
thirty years ago.

Steps for developing racial equity impact statements

• Set the standard: value statements, human rights principles, etc. with scrutiny for race. Look to
the Civil Rights Act, communications policy, other countries (for instance, the United Kingdom),
and international conventions.
• Set the consequences—how to stop and fix the problems that arise.
• Do the research; evaluate before it happens. Listen to communities. Identify measures and
metrics; track patterns over time.
• Propose alternatives, since policymakers will usually say that there’s no other way to do it.
Come up with an alternative way, with a revenue stream, to do it.
• Assess impact based on both harm and privilege (i.e., who benefits). Identify where the dime
turns; people understand financial unfairness in a more acute way.
• Utilize test jurisdiction to allow you to have a conversation on what worked and what didn’t.

Photo: Makani Themba-Nixon of the Praxis Project discusses racial

equity analysis with Knowledge Exchange participants.

20
State-Level Policy Action:
Opportunities, Challenges, Strategies

“States and cities are the laboratories of democracy.” —Fabiola Carrion

Fabiola Carrion of the Progressive States Network and Ana Montes of TURN led these discussions.

Why and how to work at the state level on media and telecommunications issues
• State policies (e.g., telecom deregulation) have broad impact and can drive the national agenda
• Policies and public utility commissions influence federal developments and other states
• All the federal work comes down to state implementation and state campaigns
• Local organizing builds people power at the state level

State-Level Policy Advocacy

Opportunities

• There is more potential influence at state level; smaller scale, smaller staff to deal with
• Can propose/pass model legislation in states to push the FCC
• Advance state laws for transparency in billing
• States have their own Lifeline and Link-up programs
• There is room for regulatory authority in the states

Challenges

• States are facing huge deficits, making it hard to push for broadband investment
• The only input to state telecom policy is from business; state legislatures are lobbied as heavily as
Congress, and state task forces are often loaded with industry people
• Legislators may not be sympathetic on positions/issues
• States are strategizing on how to test the Constitution
• State-level issues become tribal issues when a state tries to assert power

Strategies

• Look beyond legislators who are interested in telecom to those who work on other potentially
related areas or who have a similar line of thinking; e.g., in New Mexico, MLP reached out over
shared goals in financial rights, then moved to digital literacy issues
• Connect with small business people to inform them about Net Neutrality and reclassification, then
build relationships to work together on state policy
• Beltway allies can help guide what legislation to push at state level
• Build relationships with local officials who work on telecom

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 21
 Working with Public Utility Commissions (PUCs)
Opportunities

• PUCs regulate energy, telecom, and transportation; protect consumers from fraud and promote
state economic health; and deal with broadband implementation

Challenges

• Community and advocacy groups think they cannot do the policy work
• The board of directors for a nonprofit group may not want them to do state policy advocacy
• Time constraints
• Funding issues
• Utility companies will influence groups

Strategies

• Comment on proposed decisions to make an impact on broadband issues

• Meet with key staff at PUCs
• Make friends with appointment secretaries
• Be courteous; use facts, not name-calling
• Go to workshops, PUC business meetings, and public hearings
• Send letters; there is no need for formal comments
• Know the rules on talking to commissioners
• Do short surveys, and bring photos

Photo: amalia deloney, Center for Media Justice, and Steven Renderos, Main Street Project, share the community-building
process they used to plan the Minnesota Future of the Internet Town hall.

22
Appendix A: Glossary
Beltway: A term used to characterize parts of the U.S. political system. It is meant to invoke
matters that are important primarily within the offices of the federal government, its contractors,
lobbyists, and the media that cover them.1

Broadband: Broadband or high-speed Internet access allows users to access the Internet and
Internet-related services at significantly higher speeds than those available through “dial-up” Internet
access services. Broadband speeds vary significantly depending on the particular type and level of
service ordered and may range from as low as 200 kilobits per second (kbps), or 200,000 bits per
second, to six megabits per second (Mbps), or 6,000,000 bits per second. Some recent offerings
even include 50 to 100 Mbps. Broadband services for residential consumers typically provide
faster downstream speeds (from the Internet to your computer) than upstream speeds (from your
computer to the Internet).2

BTOP: The Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) is a grant program associated
with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The grant program was created to
promote the development and adoption of broadband throughout the United States, particularly in
unserved and underserved areas. BTOP will oversee disbursement of $4.7 billion in a number of
categories. The program is expected to create jobs, advance technology and boost the economy.
Most projects involve wireless broadband technologies, which are easier and less expensive to
deploy in areas of sparse population.

BTOP categories include:

• The Broadband Infrastructure category, for projects delivering broadband to unserved and
underserved areas
• The Public Computer Center category, for projects to expand or develop centers for public
access, such as public libraries and community colleges
• The Sustainable Broadband Adoption category, for projects that stimulate the demand for
broadband; the focus of such projects might include public awareness campaigns, access,
support, and education and training3

Digital divide: A term coined for the disparity between the haves and the have-nots in the area of
access to technology. Many have feared grave consequences for those unable to access the power
of the Internet; however, recent reports suggest that this divide is narrowing, rather than expanding.4

Digital inclusion: Projects, practices and approaches designed to empower people,

organizations, and businesses to apply information technology in ways that result in greater
participation in our growing knowledge-based society.

E-rate: The E-rate program is administered by the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal
Service Administrative Company. The program was set up in 1997 when the FCC adopted a

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_the_Beltway
2 http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/highspeedinternet.html
3 http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/definition/Broadband-Technology-Opportunities-Program-BTOP
4 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn00/contents00.html

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 23
Universal Service Order implementing the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The order was
designed to ensure that all eligible schools and libraries have affordable access to modern
telecommunications and information services. Up to $2.25 billion annually is available to provide
eligible schools and libraries with discounts for authorized services.5

Farm bill: In the United States, the farm bill is the primary agricultural and food policy tool of the
federal government. The comprehensive omnibus bill is passed every five years or so by Congress
and deals with both agriculture and all other affairs under the purview of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA).

FCC (Federal Communications Commission): The FCC is an independent United States

government agency. It was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with
regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable.
The FCC’s jurisdiction covers the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.6

Flip cameras: The Flip is a small, user-friendly, and relatively affordable battery-operated video
camera with features that allow for quick uploading to the web.

Future of the Internet (FOI) Town Hall: In 2005, Free Press hosted a series of large town hall–
style meetings across the country on the future of media. These events, with average attendance
of 300 to 400 people, provided an opportunity for FCC commissioners to hear directly from
community members about the impact of media consolidation. In 2010, Free Press and the Center
for Media Justice, working together with MAG-Net anchor organizations, recreated these large-
scale meetings, focusing on the future of the Internet. Given the heated debates around Network
Neutrality, as well as threats to the FCC’s ability to regulate broadband providers at all, it was
essential for the FCC to hear directly from U.S. residents about the role of Internet in their lives, the
barriers they face to getting online, and the broad support that exists for an open Internet.

Grasstops: Individuals or small groups of constituents whose voices and influence is particularly
critical on a specific issue. Unlike grassroots—or mass—mobilization, grasstops organizing focuses
outreach and advocacy to engage the most influential stakeholders for a specific effort.

Internet service provider (ISP): A company that provides Internet services, including personal
and business access to the Internet. The ISP connects to its customers using a data transmission
technology appropriate for delivering Internet Protocol packets or frames, such as dial-up, DSL,
cable modem, wireless, or dedicated high-speed interconnects.7

Lifeline and Link-Up: These programs, supported by the Universal Service Fund, help low-
income people access phone service in their primary residences. Lifeline provides discounts of up
to $10 off basic monthly phone service fees; Link-Up covers one-half (up to a maximum of $30)
toward and initial installation or activation fees for telephone service. The FCC, with the help of the
Universal Service Administrative Company, administers the USF. Both programs use income as the
criterion for eligibility.8

5 http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/nonpublic/erate.html
6 http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_service_provider
8 http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/lllu.html

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 24
Market-based racism: A term used by scholars and organizers to show how racial outlooks have
shifted from more overtly racist Jim Crow attitudes—which endorsed segregation and government-
imposed discrimination—to a more subtle rationalization of ongoing racism in the United States by
asserting (and constructing) ideologies of “equal opportunity regardless of race” to justify social
inequalities. Market-based racism asserts that poverty and other socioeconomic conditions are
largely the result of lack of ambition and effort on the part of individuals and communities, rather
than of structural and institutional racism and a history of state-sanctioned discrimination.9

Net Neutrality: Net Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.
Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers must not discriminate between different kinds
of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all websites and Internet
technologies. Net Neutrality is what has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and
free speech online. It protects the consumer’s right to use any equipment, content, application, or
service without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network’s only job is
to move data—not to choose which data to privilege with higher-quality service.10

Power analysis: A tool used by community organizers and movement builders to gain a better
understanding of power and the ways in which unequal power relationships are related to the
problems faced by their communities. Various tools can be used to conduct a power analysis,
which is then used to develop plans for building a community’s power base and/or to develop an
effective strategy for an issue campaign. The goal is a deeper understanding of the key players,
issues, constituencies, and opposing agendas that affect a community or an issue.11

Reclassification: Today, broadband is classified as a Title I Information service under the

Telecommunications Act. Title I services are not regulated by the FCC. This means that the FCC
cannot require broadband providers to share networks with competitors or what prices to charge.
By contrast, services that are classified under Title II of the Telecommunications Act are considered
telephony services and are regulated by the FCC. Under this provision, companies that own their
own phone networks are considered common carriers and they must share that infrastructure with
competitors. The government is also able to set rates for the use of those facilities. Reclassification
is the process by which the FCC is attempting to move broadband from a Title I to Title II service.12

Skype: Skype is a software application that allows users to make voice calls over the Internet. Calls
to other users within the Skype service are free, while calls to both traditional landline telephones
and mobile phones can be made for a nominal fee using a debit-based user account system.
Technologically, Skype is a peer-to-peer voice over Internet protocol (VoIP).13

Smartphone: A mobile phone that offers more advanced computing ability and connectivity than
other cell phones. Smartphones run complete operating system software providing a platform for
application developers. Thus, they combine the functions of a camera phone and a personal digital
assistant, and generally allow their users to access the Internet.14

9 http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~jweiss/laws131/unit3/bobo.htm
10 http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions
11 http://www.scopela.org/article.php?id=128
12 http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20004392-266.html
13 http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/home
14 http://cellphones.about.com/od/smartphonebasics/a/what_is_smart.htm

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 25
Subsidies: A range of government interventions, usually a form of financial assistance paid to a
business or economic sector, to continue an enterprise that benefits the public.15

Telcos: A telephone company (also known as a telco) is a service provider of telecommunications

services such as telephony and data communications access. Telephone companies are also
known as common carriers, and in the United States as Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). With the
advent of cellular telephony, telephone companies now include wireless carriers, or mobile network
operators. Today, most telephone companies also function as Internet service providers (ISPs).16

Telemedicine: Telemedicine is the use of medical information exchanged from one site to
another via electronic communications to improve patients’ health status. Closely associated with
telemedicine is the term “telehealth,” which is often used to encompass a broader definition of
remote health care that does not always involve clinical services. Videoconferencing, transmission
of still images, patient portals, remote monitoring of vital signs, continuing medical education, and
nursing call centers are all considered part of telemedicine and telehealth.17

Universal Service Fund (USF): The USF is one fund with four programs. The four programs are:
• High Cost: This program ensures that consumers in all regions of the nation have access to
and pay rates for telecommunications services that are reasonably comparable to those in
urban areas.
• Low Income: This program, which includes Lifeline and Link Up, provides discounts
that make basic, local telephone service affordable for more than 7 million low-income
consumers.
• Rural Health Care: This program provides reduced rates to rural health care providers
for telecommunications and Internet services so they pay no more than their urban
counterparts for the same or similar telecommunications services.
• Schools and Libraries: This program, also known as E-rate, provides affordable
telecommunications and Internet access services to connect schools and libraries to the
Internet. This support goes to service providers that provide discounts on eligible services
to eligible schools, school districts, libraries, and consortia of these entities.18

15 http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/181627/us_lawmakers_propose_changes_in_telecom_
subsidies.html
16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_company
17 http://www.americantelemed.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3333
18 http://www.usac.org/about/universal-service/

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 26
Appendix B: Resources
Tools including a Racial Equity Impact Statement guide, Spitfire Strategies’ messaging
guides, and other useful materials from the Knowledge Exchange

• The 2010 Knowledge Exchange resource page

http://mag-net.org/node/793

Policy briefs and campaigns

• Policy briefs
http://www.mag-net.org/policy-briefs

• Latin@s for Internet Freedom

http://www.Latinonetlibre.com/home

Best-practice guides on collaboration practices

• Process Is Powerful: Planning and Evaluation for Media Activists

http://mediaactioncenter.org/process/

• Mobilizing Our Resources: How Nationally Focused Media Policy Groups Can Help Organizers
Build the Base
http://www.mag-net.org/content/mobilizing-our-resources-how-nationally-focused-media-
policy-groups-can-help-organizers-buil

• So You Wanna Build a Movement: An Equation for Building Progressive Power

http://www.movementstrategy.org/resources

• Niche Strategies from Praxis Project’s Fair Game Toolkit

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36087990/Niche-Strategies-from-Praxis-Project-s-Fair-Game-
Toolkit

• Communicate Justice 101: The Organizers’ Essential Guide to Strategic Communications

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16596427/Communicate-Justice-101

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 27
Appendix C: Knowledge Exchange Attendees
Participants
Andrea Quijada, Media Literacy Project
Ben Lennett, New America Foundation
Beth McConnell, Media and Democracy Coalition
Carlos Pareja, People’s Production House
Chance Williams, Media and Democracy Coalition
Gigi Sohn, Public Knowledge
Harold Feld, Public Knowledge
Jessica Gonzalez, National Hispanic Media Coalition
Joe Torres , Free Press
Joel Kelsey, Free Press
Khalil Shahyd, Center for Social Inclusion
Mark Cooper, Consumer Federation of America
Matt Wood, Media Access Project
Nick Szuberla, Thousand Kites
Rachel Colyer, Media and Democracy Coalition
Steven Renderos, Main Street Project
Traci Morris, Native Public Media

Guest Presenters
Ana Montes, TURN
Christopher Mitchell, Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Fabiola Carrion, Progressive States Network
Geoffrey Blackwell, Chief of the FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy
Irene Flannery, FCC Wireline Bureau
James Rucker, Color of Change
Joel Gurin, FCC Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
Jonathan Adelstein, USDA Rural Utility Service
Julie Quiroz-Martínez, Movement Strategy Center
Kristen Zimmerman, Movement Strategy Center
Makani Themba-Nixon, Praxis Project
Mark Hugo Lopez, Pew Hispanic Center
Piper Kerman, Spitfire Strategies
Shireen Mitchell, Digital Sisters
Steve Savner, Center for Community Change

Knowledge Exchange Staff

Consumers Union Center for Media Justice
Ellen Bloom Malkia A. Cyril
Parul P. Desai amalia deloney
Bob Williams Betty Yu
Monique D. Cooke Karlos Schmieder
Oshen Turman

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 28
Appendix D: Summarized Agenda
Monday, September 13, 2010
Future of the Internet: Perspectives on Race, Poverty, and Democracy
• Welcome and KE10 Overview
• Participant Introductions
• Opening Panel: Perspectives on the Economy, Race, and the Digital Divide
• Reflections: Digital Access, Rights, and Power for Twenty-First-Century Democracy
• Presentations and Discussion: The Current Policy Landscape
• Visit to Representative Rick Boucher’s Office, and Energy and Commerce Committee Offices

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Future of the Internet: Issues and Strategies
• Welcome, Agenda Review, Opening Film
• Spotlight on the Media Literacy Project and People’s Production House: Youth, Mobile
• Broadband and the Fight for Consumer Protections Pop Ed
• Future of the Internet Roundtable: Model Policies, Projects, and Practices
• Presentation: Jonathan Adelstein, Head of USDA Rural Utility Service
• Campaign Strategy Circles
• Presentation: USF, Wireline, and Low Cost Programs
• Overview: Principles and Practices in Constituency Building
• Base-Building Small Groups: Netroots, Labor, Latin@s, Rural
• Large Group Discussion on Constituency Strategies
• Spotlight on Thousand Kites: Phone Companies, Incarceration, and the Fight to Call Home
• Models for Community-Based Broadband

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Best Practices in Advocacy and Collaboration
• Meeting with FCC Chair Genachowski’s Office
• Meeting with FCC Commissioner Clyburn’s Office
• Building Powerful Alliances
• Statewide Organizing to Reform Broadband Policy
• Racial Equity Analysis and Advocacy Tools
• Social Media, Online Advocacy: Using the Internet to Fight for the Internet
• KE10 Dinner and Presentation

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Collaborative Communications and Next Steps
• The Debate Over Broadband Policy: USF Content Analysis
• Spitfire Strategies: Strategic Communications for USF Reform
• Spotlight on Latin@s for Internet Freedom
• Joint Projects
• Evaluation
• Event Closing

Building an Equity and Justice Movement for the Internet, Mobile Phones, and Future Networks 29