future_of_music

Hi, Commissioner Rosenworcel!

As you know, musicians and independent labels have been early and consistent advocates for net neutrality; it’s crucial for our ability to reach audiences and have our voices heard, and we’re so grateful for your steadfast support!

Unfortunately, despite overwhelming public opinion, it seems like some of your colleagues want to allow big businesses like ISPs make the rules. And now we’re facing another attempt by the big commercial broadcasters to change the rules and allow a single company to own an unlimited number of FM and AM radio stations in most communities. As you’ve pointed out, for many Americans that could mean one company controls every radio station in their town. Commercial radio already plays repetitive and narrow playlists, with less and less local music, and less diversity of viewpoints. This would make the problem even worse, another instance of too few companies having too much control over how we communicate.

Do you think there’s a connection between the fight for net neutrality and the fight for diversity of voices on the radio airwaves?

Short version: not if we have anything to say anything about it. Activists (including the musicians and independent labels we work with) haven't fought this hard for more an decade to allow the ISPs to win in the end. We're keeping the fight alive in Congress, in the courts, and in the states.

Now, in terms of imagining the kinds of specific harms that would happen in a world without net neutrality; it's true that sometimes people's attempts to describe what a future without NN could look like you end up in what seems like dystopian sci-fi scenarios. This isn't because activists like us are doom and gloom pessimists--it's because we've seen what happens when huge companies like the ISPs are able to make their own rules, and it's because the pace of technology makes it difficult to anticipate just what form information discrimination could take. We can look at the ISPs history of censorship, we can look at what we've learned watching the behavior of other media giants in the absence of regulation, we can look at their own statements about what they want to do without a ban on paid prioritization. And from that we can do our best to extrapolate what could happen.

This is why we need the flexibility provided by Title II, to give the FCC the authority to prevent kinds of discriminatory behavior we haven't even been able to imagine yet, under a "general conduct" rule.

So, the FCC’s job is to regulate our communications systems and ensure they operate in ways that serve the public. They’ve existed since 1934, when Congress created the agency. Back then the most important communication technology was radio. The FCC made rules to ensure that stations stuck to the frequencies they were licensed to occupy rather than having a bunch of different stations all trying to broadcast at the same frequency, causing interference so no one could actually hear anything. There would eventually be more regulations to ensure that the public would have access to a diversity of voices and perspectives —ensuring one company didn’t own too many stations, etc.

As technology advanced, the FCC would eventually be given authority to regulate new kinds of communication technology. The FCC does not have authority over content on the internet but they can regulate internet service providers, the companies that you pay for internet access.

It’s important to understand that having an FCC is a very good thing! People usually only hear about the agency when the leadership does something we don’t like, but our ability to connect and communicate would be very impaired without them making some basic rules of the road. We just want the FCC to do its job and choose the rules that benefit citizens. Unfortunately Ajit Pai, the current FCC chairman has a different point of view—his preference is to let big corporations make the rules.

You just gotta think about the long game. The lesson of history is that democracy is hard work but persistent efforts by dedicated activists really can lead to lasting change.

When FMC started working on this issue almost no one even knew what Net Neutrality was...it was considered a wonky technical issue. We used music as a way of describing its impacts on communities and free expression. We organized benefit CDs, educated musicians and independent labels, and persistently told our stories to elected officials. Now an overwhelming majority of the public supports net neutrality protections!

You often have to lose a few times before you win. That’s how change happens. Nothing to get discouraged about.

One thing that's very important is for officials to hear from lots of different kinds of organizations--not just "tech policy" people. It's important to show the breadth and diversity of the communities this policy impacts, and elevate their voices. We've spent a lot of time at FMC working to connect and mobilize arts and culture organizations, big and small, local and national, and get them involved in the fight, share how the issue matters to them, and make sure that officials understand how net neutrality impacts their local symphony orchestra, theater company, or indie record label. Other organizers have done amazing work making sure that officials are hearing specifically from civil rights communities and religious communities. Whatever communities you are a part of, look for opportunities to get your community engaged.