NAACP Inconsistent on Broadband

Yes, let's focus on broadband, please.

Greg Moore is a spokesman for the NAACP, and the executive director of the National NAACP Voter Fund, and is taking a political position in a public paper, commenting on the record on NAACP positions...

Yet you can't find anything that indicates he's speaking for the entire NAACP? I imagine yes, hopefully there are people inside the organization that understand these bills have a negative impact on deployment.

Too bad they're not talking.

quote:

---

The previous two were right. Nowhere does Greg Moore claim to be speaking for the NAACP.

---

Moore is the Executive Director of the NAACP National Voter Fund, taking a political position in a major paper. Yet you don't think he's speaking on the behalf of the NAACP?

quote:

---

Your article is very misleading and I can see why people would question it's agenda

---

You're the only one "questioning its agenda" and you work for Verizon in Texas, judging from your posting history. The NAACP is advocating broadband connections to everyone, yet supporting bills that ensure the exact opposite. I don't know, I find that worth mentioning.

Who are you kidding? The most lucrative communities for cable service are not the rich subdivisions. Low income and rural neighborhood residents buy more premium channels, pay-per-views, high speed Internet and other producs and services. I guess if the projects were "cherry picked" the suburbs would be without cable service. The NAACP supports competition and increased telecommunications industry access for all who have been overcharged or blocked by cable TV.

quote:

---

Low income and rural neighborhood residents buy more premium channels, pay-per-views, high speed Internet and other producs and services.

---

Yeah, I've heard AT&T execs say that, I know it's an internal talking point, and I'm sure it's based on some marginally relevant statistics that may even be partially true. The truth of that statement should then be pretty easily tested by how quickly U-Verse and FiOS gets deployed to low income and rural areas, yes?

quote:

---

I guess if the projects were "cherry picked" the suburbs would be without cable service. The NAACP supports competition and increased telecommunications industry access for all who have been overcharged or blocked by cable TV.

---

Yet they support bills that eliminate the very franchise system that forced providers to push services out to those areas in the first place?

So can someone explain to me why net neutrality is good for black folks? Because all I hear you all doing is ragging on NAACP

So why is Net Neut good for black folks? I hear a lot of ragging on the NAACP but nothing really tells me why net neut is good for blacks!

That still doesn't make him the final say on official NAACP policy any more than an op-ed by say, John McCain or Arnold Schwarzenegger makes their single-issue opinions gospel for the entire GOP.

I should also point out that that Moore is executive director for the NAACP National Voter Fund, which is a separate entity from the NAACP.

Unless the better part of the NAACP's board goes on record to share Moore's opinion or the Association issues a statement, resolution or press release reflecting such policy, then Gregory Moore's opinions speak solely for Gregory Moore.

Depends how you define network neutrality, or if you support network neutrality laws (I don't because I doubt legislator competence, not because I find the concept unsound).

The idea of allowing consumers equal access to competing services without blockades or service degredation is good for all consumers of any race...

You're splitting hairs.

He's an NAACP employee taking a political position in a public paper in order to sway voters at the behest of the NAACP. The NAACP in turn is speaking for their phone company donors, which is obvious by the network neutrality position he takes and the bizarre Google "free ride" rhetoric which only incumbents use.

Moore, an NAACP employee, tells us that "broadband in every home should remain our policy goal", yet the organization still supports "franchise reform" as a whole, and participates in a massive disinformation effort funded by incumbent phone providers.

If you want to test your theory that Moore's position isn't theirs, try getting them to publicly state that they support network neutrality laws or oppose bell franchise reform. I promise you they won't do it.....and it has nothing to do with minority concerns...

I understand that. However, why would you need legislation if there isnt a problem to begin with?

You asked "why is Net Neut good for black folks." I answered that.

Whether there should be network neutrality laws is a different issue. As I said, I don't support laws (yet).

The desire for the laws is based on the concern is thatmonopoly power will ultimately lead incumbent providers to shut out content competition. I believe that's a factual worry.

So noting that one is head of a separate organization is "splitting hairs" now? Hm.

And, disingenuousness notwithstanding, even if one were to prove the negative of the NAACP proper sharing Moore's opinion, it would render the headline moot as the two entities would no longer be in contradiction, would they?

quote:

---

So noting that one is head of a separate organization is "splitting hairs" now?

---

Since the NAACP National Voter fund was created by the NAACP for lobbying purposes, espouses NAACP political positions, and takes funding from the NAACP, yes, you are.