The Pacific Technology Alliance claims to be a "grassroots" organization representing consumer interests.

From time to time, Stop the Cap! readers send us news tips based on things they find in their local newspaper or online.  Shaffa in Seattle sent us a link to a letter to the editor in the Seattle Times which seemed to be right up our alley.  The writer, Tom Gurr, executive director of something called the Pacific Technology Alliance, wrote the newspaper advocating the redefining of broadband as “a necessary, transformative element to modern life.”  Gurr advocates widespread deployment of broadband service to all Americans.  So far so good.

We cannot overstate the economic impact, to both the individual and the nation, of building out broadband infrastructure and making it available and accessible to all. But not all Americans have access to broadband, and not all Americans who have access are able to use broadband. Price or concerns about privacy and data security are barriers for some. For these individuals and communities, the degree of “openness” or “neutrality” of the network is irrelevant.

America can universally reap the rewards of broadband through its infrastructure deployment, removal of barriers to adoption and investment in more efficient and cost-effective smart networks needed for tomorrow’s dynamic and ever-evolving applications and content.

Whoops… what was that part about “openness” or “neutrality” of the network being “irrelevant?”

As Stop the Cap! readers already know, Net Neutrality issues can go hand in hand with availability and price, and I have yet to meet anyone who hasn’t pondered how private their information is kept (particularly their credit card numbers used online) and how secure their computers are from external attack from viruses and spyware.

In communities with little competition, speed can fall behind more competitive cities nearby.  Prices are almost always lower when providers do battle to secure and keep customers.  Interfering with a consumer’s broadband service to maximize revenue or protect existing business models is a risky proposition if your biggest competitor doesn’t.  Customers will flee across town to “the other guy” for service.

It seemed odd to advocate for widespread broadband deployment while taking time out to swipe at Net Neutrality.  The closing line of the letter seemed slightly vague as well, so it was time to bring out The Google and figure out where this organization is coming from.

Upon arrival at the Pacific Technology Alliance, web visitors will find “partner” logos sweeping on and off the right side of the page.  The very first logo appearing for me was for good old AT&T.  Other “partners” include:

• Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
• Association of Washington State Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
• Women Impacting Public Policy
• National Federation of Independent Business
• Washington Farm Bureau
• OregonWatchdog.com

That’s an odd assortment of partners for a group Gurr told the Oregon Biz Report was, “a grassroots, technology association that will be active in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana and Hawaii.”

It’s an open question how much “grassroots” can be found from AT&T, big Pharma, a conservative business association (NFIB), and an anti-tax news website, among others.

“PacTech is working to keep consumers and policy-makers educated and informed about the major emerging communications and technology-related issues that impact consumer’s lives,” Gurr continued.

It might be a surprise to learn the Washington Farm Bureau and the Association of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce would take an interest in broadband just for the benefit of consumers.  AT&T’s involvement is also entirely for the consumer’s benefit, I’m sure.

Mission:
The mission of the Pacific Technology Alliance (PacTech) is to educate citizens and policy makers about emerging technology issues and to promote policies that foster competition, innovation, increased choice and access to technology.

Principles:
Technology and innovation should be left to the market place – government should not be choosing winners and losers.
Citizens deserve a voice in the public policy process that impacts technology, innovation and the products and services they use.
The community and consumers benefit from innovation and competition.

At first glance, the group’s principles would seem to fit nicely with conservatives who believe in free market approaches to commerce.  Too bad AT&T and others integrally involved in broadband deployment don’t always agree.  Many private companies building broadband networks are fiercely lobbying for access to taxpayer dollars and credits available from the Obama Administration’s broadband stimulus fund to help defray the costs of building those networks in rural areas.  Why ask private investors to pay if the government will instead?

Meandering around the rest of the issues featured on Pacific Technology Alliance’s website, it becomes clear the primary agenda at work here is that of the “partners” supporting the work.  That’s classic astroturfing – pretending to represent the interests of ordinary consumers while actually representing the interests of the organizations and companies that comprise or support the group.  Consumer interests are secondary, if represented at all on several important issues:

Net Neutrality: “Where proponents of Net Neutrality would have people believe it is about first amendment issues, what it really consists of is an effort by content providers to force network builders to provide them with unlimited bandwidth for free. They have asked Congress and State Legislatures around the country to regulate how private companies invest their capital and construct private networks to suit their needs all in the name of “Net Neutrality”. We think this would harm the growth of the internet, slow investment in this vital infrastructure and impede the growth of technology. We intend to oppose it at every level.”

Opposing Net Neutrality is absolutely anti-consumer for any broadband customer trying to access content on a service they pay for.  Consumers could find content limited, impeded, or prohibitively expensive because a company with a vested interest in controlling the growth of services like online video could seek to impose Internet Overcharging schemes to discourage subscribers from using that content.  Content providers often drive  consumers to subscribe to broadband service in the first place.  Subscribers already pay for access to this content, enriching broadband providers.  Demanding that both subscribers and content providers pay is asking to be paid twice.  That’s not about fairness — it’s about profiteering.

In countries where Net Neutrality protection is not afforded (Canada being an excellent nearby example), the proof of the impact is crystal clear.  It harmed the growth of the Internet in Canada, diminished the country’s position in broadband penetration, cost, and speed, and allowed providers to reduce investment because demand for broadband was artificially limited by Internet Overcharging schemes.  If anything has impeded the growth of technology in Canada, the lack of Net Neutrality and permitting Internet Overcharging schemes are high on the list.  PacTech’s views are in direct opposition to reality on the ground in North America, and don’t exist in the minds of most consumers.  They do exist in the corporate headquarters of broadband providers who seek to leverage additional profits by limiting/discouraging consumption.

U.S. Broadband Policy: “This study recommends we employ a combination of tax credits, incentives and government funding to encourage wider expansion of broadband to both rural and urban areas and increase access and adoption rates.” (This quotation introduces an article linked from the website, which would presumably also be in agreement with their views on the matter.)

What would the free market proponents say about giving out tax incentives and government money for broadband deployment?  One of the realities of broadband in this country is that most markets have just one or two providers, which exist as either virtual monopolies or duopolies.  In rural areas, if broadband is available at all, it is slow and expensive.  The reality is that free market solutions are unlikely to deploy advanced technology networks like fiber to the home except in the largest communities in America.  We agree that incentives may be necessary to guarantee deployment, but they should not simply be handed over to providers like AT&T to construct networks and not expect government conditions and oversight.  No public funds should be given to providers who construct networks they then use to extract massive profits through the use of Internet Overcharging schemes and arbitrary limits on usage.  Municipally owned broadband networks should also be an available option, without private providers burying communities in lawsuits.

Internet Tax Moratorium: “There is no doubt this tax moratorium has driven the growth of the internet, just look at where the internet has come since 1998. This policy has reduced the digital divide, driven innovation and improved our overall economy enormously. Internet use is growing at an astounding rate and new services and content become available to consumers everyday.”

The limits on imposing taxes have more accurately driven the growth of e-commerce on the Internet more than the Internet itself.  It’s not convincing to suggest the absence of taxes has reduced the digital divide, particularly when providers have been increasing rates in several areas.  The drive in innovation and improvements in the economy relate to the profit-making potential of online business, not necessarily the Internet in general.  That being said, few consumers seek higher taxes for anything.

Wireless Telephone Deregulation Must Be Preserved: “We have more choices in our wireless devices, features, calling plans and we pay less than nearly every country in the world. A lightly-regulated wireless market has successfully delivered innovative technology and flexible contract terms. The Washington Policy Center recently studied the issue and came to the same conclusions; we have linked to their study below. Over regulation of this critical industry will only serve to damage wireless consumers and we intend to oppose any measure that goes too far.”

Reviewing some of the linked articles on the website point to arcane proposals, such as making wireless phones interoperable on any carrier’s network, something hardly on the front burner legislatively.  A few of the linked articles lead nowhere, so it is unclear what the focus is on this group’s objections to wireless industry regulation.  They most recently pointed to the reduction in price for the newly released Apple iPhone to be an example of the free market at work.  That’s an ironic proposition, considering AT&T retains a monopoly on the iPhone and service for it at this time.

Many astroturf organizations do occasionally advocate for interests that fall in line with what most consumers want.  But their advocacy comes with a lot of caveats — namely, understanding who ultimately pays the bills to keep the office open, who sits on the organization’s board of directors, and what potential conflicts of interest or agendas might follow.  Always follow the money because most groups first and foremost answer to those handing it to them.