A $24 million federal grant proposal to install 600 miles of fiber optic cable across the southern tier of New York has advanced to the “Due Diligence Phase” of federal review, making it a serious contender for approval.

The application for the “middle mile” project was submitted jointly by the Southern Tier East and Southern Tier Central Planning Development Boards to create a fiber-based backbone to facilitate so-called “last mile” projects which deliver connections directly to consumers and businesses.  If built, the project will make connectivity available to all-comers, from wireless providers trying to reach the most rural homes to cable and telephone-based broadband providers delivering enhanced speeds and service.

The Shequaga Falls, visible from W. Main Street in Montour Falls, exemplifies the terrain of many Southern Tier communities in New York.

Broome, Delaware, Otsego, Chemung, Steuben and Schuyler counties would be served by the fiber network if constructed.

The southern tier of New York, mostly defined as west to Lake Erie and east to Binghamton, is particularly lacking in broadband, in part because of very difficult terrain.  Steep sloping hills rising 1,000 feet or more, created from glacial movements, combine with level hilltops representative of the Appalachian Plateau.  In most of these areas, fields and pastures crown the high points while cropland and communities locate on the level valley floor.  Getting broadband to residents and farms involves winding cables around the hills through communities like Bath, Corning, Elmira, Hornell, Watkins Glen-Montour Falls, and Wayland.  Even larger communities like Binghamton and Ithaca have plenty of landscape to navigate.

Inside immediate town and city centers, broadband is usually provided by Time Warner Cable, Frontier Communications, Verizon, or one of several independent phone companies.  Where 30mph speed limits predominate, broadband is likely available.  Once the speed limit returns to 55mph, service becomes more spotty.

Prior efforts to expand broadband availability included:

• Public/Private Partnerships: Cooperative efforts to ease the way for private providers to extend service into previously unserved areas.  This had limited success, particularly when sufficient return on investment could not be achieved within a set time frame.  Most private providers will not wire sparsely populated areas because of the time it takes to recoup wiring and pole costs.
• Aggregation of Demand: This technical-sounding term simply means bringing neighbors together and getting them to jointly commit to sign up for broadband service if a provider will agree to extend service to their neighborhood.  This can achieve success in areas where a provider is assured of getting his initial investment back.  A few of these efforts have even shared or split the financing of some construction costs.  Mike McNamara of Haefele Cable Television, an independent cable provider serving 4,700 residents in rural sections of Tioga County, noted “last mile” access can be expensive, costing about $12,000 for them to extend cable service per mile.

The blue color represents areas in this section of the Southern Tier where no broadband service is available. (click to enlarge)

A decision on the grant is expected by September.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WETM Elmira One Step Closer to High Speed Broadband Access 6-24-10.flv[/flv]

WETM-TV in Elmira explains the plan to expand broadband service throughout the Southern Tier of New York, if a grant can be awarded.  (1 minute)

Obama

President Obama signed a memorandum this morning that will free up 500Mhz of government and privately-owned spectrum over the next decade to double the amount of wireless broadband capacity in the United States.

The Obama Administration claims the newly available spectrum will throw a rescue line to overburdened wireless networks that are facing a spectrum crunch.  The White House estimates wireless data usage will explode — growing between 20 and 45 times in the next five years.

President Obama:

Few technological developments hold as much potential to enhance America’s economic competitiveness, create jobs, and improve the quality of our lives as wireless high-speed access to the Internet.  Innovative new mobile technologies hold the promise for a virtuous cycle — millions of consumers gain faster access to more services at less cost, spurring innovation, and then a new round of consumers benefit from new services.  The wireless revolution has already begun with millions of Americans taking advantage of wireless access to the Internet.

Expanded wireless broadband access will trigger the creation of innovative new businesses, provide cost-effective connections in rural areas, increase productivity, improve public safety, and allow for the development of mobile telemedicine, telework, distance learning, and other new applications that will transform Americans’ lives.

In practical terms, the reallocation of spectrum could spark a battle between the current spectrum holders — often government agencies and private UHF television stations — and the government.  Parts of the plan will require Congressional approval, a sure-fire guarantee that wireless providers will have to write some more checks to their astroturf and sock puppet friends to help sell the benefits of the plan to a wary Congress.

Since most of the spectrum would likely be sold at auction, the proceeds could deliver the administration a tidy sum to either reduce the federal budget deficit and/or fund broadband initiatives.

But what might seem at first like a win-win might not turn out that way in the end.

We have the following concerns:

Past spectrum auctions have largely benefited incumbent wireless carriers, especially companies like AT&T and Verizon who have the deep pockets that guarantee successful bids at auctions.  Both wireless carriers are not actually using all of the spectrum they already acquired in earlier auctions and have essentially warehoused those frequencies, particularly in rural areas, to keep them out of the hands of other companies that could deliver service.  FCC requirements that auction winners actually utilize their acquired spectrum have been so lax as to be laughable.  Carriers can easily satisfy FCC requirements building only in urban areas and leaving large swaths of the countryside unserved. The FCC must set rules that auction winners use their allotments in both rural and urban areas, or face fines or forfeiture.

Setting aside some frequency blocks for smaller providers and would-be competitors is critical.  In today’s mobile wireless marketplace two companies are superpowers and then there is everyone else.  Both AT&T and Verizon have the resources to outbid virtually anyone.  Allowing blocks of frequencies to be reserved exclusively for new competitors would bolster competition and give consumers more choices.  Those frequencies must be sold in a block that is identical nationwide — not leftover spectrum running through several frequency bands.

Providing additional spectrum for wireless broadband isn’t a problem, but with complaints about wireless service providers growing, along with consumers’ bills, now is the time to reform wireless for the benefit of consumers.  Let’s make it a “win” for everyone.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Obama Proposes to Double Airwaves for Mobile Web Access 6-28-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News explains the controversy behind the transfer of spectrum from the government and broadcasters to the mobile broadband industry.  (2 minutes)

Mehlman

A telecom industry front group acknowledged today American broadband in the last decade has not won any awards for speed or price, but if you just give the industry ten more years of deregulation, there will be more competition than ever to change that.

For the Internet Innovation Alliance’s Bruce Mehlman, the cable and phone companies have done a fine job bringing broadband to Americans, especially considering the industry is only ten years old.  If you leave things the way they are today, the next decade will bring even more competition from phone and cable companies, he promises.

But consumer groups wonder exactly how a duopoly will ever deliver world class service in the next ten years when it has spent the last ten hiking prices on slow speed broadband and now wants to limit or throttle usage.

This afternoon, National Public Radio’s All Things Considered tried to referee the broadband debate, pondering whether America is a world leader in broadband or has just fallen behind Estonia.  Reporter Joel Rose was perplexed to find two widely diverging attitudes about broadband, each with their set of numbers to prove their case.

On one side, consumers and public interest groups like Consumers Union and Free Press who believe deregulation and industry consolidation has created a stagnant broadband duopoly that only innovates how it can get away with charging even higher prices.

On the other, the phone and cable companies, the groups they finance, and their friends on Capitol Hill who believe there isn’t a broadband problem in the United States to begin with and government oversight would ruin a good thing.

Compared with other nations, the United States has continued to see its standing fall in broadband rankings measuring speed, price, adoption rates, and quality.  When East European countries and former Soviet Republics now routinely deliver better broadband service than America’s cable and telephone companies, that story writes itself. Embarrassed industry defenders prefer to confine discussion of America’s broadband success story inside the U.S. borders, discounting comparisons with other countries around the world.

For Rep. Joe “I Apologize to BP” Barton (R-Texas), it’s even more simple than that.  Even questioning the free market is downright silly.

“As everybody knows, if it’s not broke, don’t fix it,” Barton said at a March congressional hearing to discuss broadband matters. “And y’all are trying to fix something that in most cases isn’t broke. Ninety-five percent of America has broadband.”

Industry-financed astroturf and sock puppet groups readily agree, and dismiss industry critics.

Bruce Mehlman, co-chair of the industry-supported Internet Innovation Alliance, which opposes more regulation, acknowledges that the story of broadband in the U.S. is a classic glass-half-full, glass-half-empty predicament. Still, he says he thinks broadband adoption in the U.S. is going pretty well considering broadband has only been available for 10 years.

“For the optimist, you’d say within a decade we’ve seen greater broadband deployment than you saw for cell phones, than for cable TV, than for personal computers,” Mehlman says. “It’s one of the great technology success stories in history.”

Mehlman says Americans don’t need more government intervention to make broadband faster and cheaper. “We haven’t yet and that’s in the first decade,” he says. “In the second decade, the marketplace is only going to be that much more competitive.”

Kelsey

The problems go further than that, however.

Derek Turner, research director for the public interest group Free Press, told NPR broadband rankings tell an important story. “For the providers to try to say that there’s no problem, it’s merely just a smoke screen,” he says.

Providers would prefer to measure their performance against each other instead of comparing themselves with foreign providers now routinely providing better, faster, and cheaper service than what American consumers can find.  They have to, if only because of those pesky international rankings illustrating a wired United States in decline.

Joel Kelsey at Consumers Union tells NPR there is an even bigger question here — what role broadband plays in our lives.

Because 96 percent of Americans can only get broadband from a duopoly — the phone or cable company, the only people truly singing the praises of today’s broadband marketplace are the providers themselves and their shareholders.  Consumers see a bigger problem — high prices, and particularly for rural consumers, slow speeds.

“If you talk to [the] industry,” Kelsey says, “they think of broadband as a private commercial service akin to pay TV or cable TV.”

On the other hand, Kelsey says, “There’s a lot of folks who think it is an essential input into this nation’s economy — an essential infrastructure question.”

National Public Radio reporter Joel Rose dived into the battle over broadband numbers between consumer groups and industry representatives. Is America’s broadband glass half-full or half-empty? (June 28, 2010) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Shapiro

Yesterday, Stop the Cap! reviewed a report from Robert J. Shapiro and Kevin Hassett suggesting “heavy users” should pay 80 percent of the costs to upgrade and expand broadband service to help lower prices for Internet access among America’s poor.  But what might have read to some as a scholarly assessment of challenges confronting American broadband is, in reality, propaganda produced by Sonecon, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm hired by AT&T to sell their corporate agenda to the American public, interest groups, and Congress.

Beltway Economics – Buying Credentialed “Experts” to Back Discredited Policies

The dirty little secret of Washington power politics is that money buys attention, access, and all too often votes.  What began as a cottage industry to help facilitate communications between private business and political Washington has grown into a monstrosity that now largely controls the agenda, giving the upper hand to those who can outspend their rivals.  Since all too often those rivals are consumers who don’t bring money to play the game, they don’t even get a seat at the table.

Few people start a career thinking they’ll ultimately wind up prostituting their good name and resume to the highest bidder.  For many inside the beltway, what may have begun as a well-intentioned career in public service too often ends working for one of countless “public strategy firms” that help special interests get their way. Their impact on the debate is pervasive, especially when Congressional allies are on board: using suggested witnesses at Congressional hearings that lock out true consumer groups, reading lobbyist-provided talking points during floor debates, quoting from industry-sponsored reports sold as “independent research,” and gratefully accepting any accompanying campaign contribution checks along the way.

Most D.C. lobbying firms rely on recognized names who maintain a high profile in Washington power circles even years after leaving the public sector.  When selling an agenda, it helps if the person doing the sales pitch already knows the person being sold.  That’s why so many ex-Congressmen, deciding they’ve gotten used to living in Washington and want to stay, find new careers and a much bigger paycheck working as lobbyists.  But elected office isn’t a requirement.  Even those appointed to positions in the public sector can turn those lean government pay years into an income bonanza once that administration leaves office.

Robert J. Shapiro has come a long way from his early days in progressive politics found him in positions at several liberally-minded groups like the Progressive Policy Institute and the Progressive Foundation.  He advised several Democratic presidential candidates, including Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.  Bill Clinton appointed Shapiro the U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs during his second term in office.

Unfortunately, although that title looks great on a business card and future resume, the pay is downright lousy.  Besides, his temp job would end with the Clinton Administration’s departure.

Shapiro combined his credentials with years of networking into Sonecon, LLC — a D.C. lobbying firm that pays dividends from its grateful clients, including AT&T.  Sonecon describes itself as “an economic advisory firm that provides in-depth analyses and unique insights into changing economic conditions in the United States and around the world and the impact of government policies on those conditions….”

Sonecon Knows Its Place

But just a little digging reveals Sonecon is really just another cog in the wheel of corporate campaign strategy and messaging.  Among the services promised to its clients (underlined emphasis ours):

• [Sonecon] works extensively with a network of affiliated firms (read that other lobbyists, astroturf groups, and think tanks) to help design and execute message campaigns;
• Sonecon plays an influential role in shaping public policy debates. We identify economic risks and opportunities created by recently proposed or enacted laws and regulations. By outlining the risks and opportunities associated with these changes, Sonecon enables business and government decision makers to react in a timely and appropriate way.  One recent example: Our reports on proposed new FCC regulations effecting broadband providers focused on broadband access issues for lower income households.
• As part of our services, Sonecon principals and advisers take part in strategic public relations campaigns designed to promote the firm’s work in the media, Congress and Executive Branch.  Well-informed, credentialed, and highly credible spokespersons, our team members are available for special appearances as well as ongoing communication campaigns.

Sonecon’s involvement in this particular ongoing communications campaign was made considerably easier by CNET’s sloppy editorial policy which effectively handed free media to AT&T without adequate disclosure of Shapiro’s agenda.  A simple Google search would have given CNET ample evidence that Shapiro and his firm were performing work on behalf of its clients — the telecommunications industry, especially AT&T.  This is not CNET’s first lapse.  On June 3rd, they provided column space for Robert Hahn to bash the FCC for involving itself in data plan pricing.  Only they never disclosed the fact Hahn is associated with the Technology Policy Institute (TPI), a phone and cable industry-backed think tank.  Even Comcast managed to disclose that association in their company blog.

In March, Shapiro appeared on an industry-backed panel to oppose broadband reform (from left, Robert Crandall-Brookings Institution, Walter McCormick-USTelecom, Lee Rainie-Pew Internet and America Life Project, Robert Shapiro-Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy, and Joseph Waz, Comcast)

The unfortunate part of this story is that Sonecon and Shapiro have also infested the current debate over the National Broadband Plan.  This past March, Shapiro joined forces with the aforementioned TPI and its benefactors AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and the cable lobbying group NCTA to appear at a half-day “event” at the National Press Club to whine about broadband reform’s impact on industry investment and broadband expansion.  To underscore the economic investment threat, the sponsors were only willing to provide a continental breakfast for participants.  Leave us deregulated or else American broadband will resemble this stale pastry and ersatz “orange juice”-flavored beverage.

Such events happen easily in Washington with a swipe of a corporate credit card.  If consumers still had money, they could hire firms like Sonecon to represent their interests in these beltway policy debates.  But then hard-hit Americans don’t even have credit cards to spare these days, thanks to earlier lobbying efforts that allowed banks to use the economy as their personal casino.  Shapiro played his part in this too, writing a January 2008 report, “American Jobs and the Impact of Private Equity Transactions” that advocated for big Wall Street private equity leveraged buyouts, playing down the typical wholesale job losses that followed:

The data strongly suggest that private equity operations have solid, positive effects on U.S. employment, a finding consistent with the general role that private equity transactions play in the American economy. Private equity funds identify inefficient companies or subsidiaries, leverage those companies’ assets to borrow much of the financing to purchase them outright or to purchase a controlling interest, reorganize their operations and management, and run the enterprises as privately-owned entities.

Friends Until the End… Of the Contract

True to word, Shapiro did work extensively with a network of affiliated firms.  Many of the sources in his report are other groups also working for the industry or dependent on it.

The challenge here is that industry and government experts now expect that broadband bandwidth demand will continue to rise rapidly with the fast-expanding use of video and audio applications, and that consequently broadband providers face an extended period of significantly higher investments to accommodate this growing bandwidth demand.

[…]Another estimate cited by David McClure, the head of the U.S. Internet Industry Association, and John Ernhardt, Senior Manager of Policy Communications for Cisco Systems, projects that the long-term investments required to keep up with rising bandwidth demand could cost providers an additional $300 billion over 20 years, on top of their trend level investments.

Recently, the FCC broadband task force suggested that the additional investment requirements, including wiring every household with fiber, may well reach $350 billion.

The U.S. Internet Industry Association is a trade association for service providers like AT&T and Verizon.  A Verizon executive serves on its board.  Its mission includes working “to enhance your existing legislative and regulatory resources, giving your company a stronger voice over a wider range of issues — and at a reduced cost.”

Cisco Systems, principal advocate of the theory of the Internet traffic tsunami, makes its living selling equipment to manage the “exaflood” to the same industry that it pals around with in public policy debates.

Kevin Hassett co-authored the Sonecon report

And where does Shapiro’s estimated price tag of $350 billion come from?  His proclaimed source, the FCC broadband task force, is only half the story.  In fact, this cost estimate came from service providers, equipment manufacturers, and trade associations/lobbyists, among others¹.  That part didn’t make it into Shapiro’s report  — maybe he ran out of room.

Therein lies the basic problem with sock puppet research.  The credibility of any industry-funded study is questionable before the first copy even gets published.  Common sense dictates that a firm’s longevity is directly tied to its performance for clients.  Producing research that questions the strategy a company hires you to push is a one-way ticket to bankruptcy.  It doesn’t matter what credentials one brings to the table, money always speaks louder, especially in Washington.

Shapiro’s co-author, Kevin Hassett, is a political polar opposite, having served as an economic adviser to John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign and Director of Economic Studies at the very-business-friendly American Enterprise Institute.  The potential friction between the two was eased by the ultimate incentive: big piles of bipartisan telecom cash.

In the end, Sonecon has done its client’s bidding — fixing facts to subjectively argue that unlimited, flat-rate broadband has to go. Their evidence is as flimsy as can be — assumptions that overcharging some people for Internet service will guarantee upgrades and cheaper pricing for others.

If you believe that, you’ll also believe Shapiro and Hassett wrote this report for free.

¹Federal Communications Commission. FCC Task Force on the National Broadband Plan Presentation to the FCC: September Commission Meeting (Slide 45)

More dollar-a-holler advocacy for AT&T in the pages of CNET. AT&T brings the money, lobbyists ride their former credentials to deliver exactly the "facts" AT&T wants to read.

CNET last week shamefully handed over column space to a barely-disclosed AT&T lobbyist trotting out the latest unfounded, anti-consumer nonsense: tiered data plans help bring broadband to the poor.

It’s all part of AT&T’s Re-education campaign to sucker convince Americans that paying more for less service is a good thing:

New analysis shows that as Internet providers ramp up their investments to accommodate the surge in bandwidth demand, the old, one-price-for-everybody model would slow our progress toward universal adoption, especially by lower-income Americans.

The first reaction of many Internet users to this news may well be disbelief. How can it be that a pricing approach that has worked so well for so many years can suddenly become obsolete and even counterproductive? The answer is that technological advances have changed what many of us do online, which, in turn, has changed the economics.

A techno-ecosystem once dominated by e-mail and text now is increasingly characterized by high-definition video that claims up to 1,000 times as much network capacity and bandwidth as simple text. The way we currently pay for the infrastructure required to keep the network humming also will have to change.

The only humming we hear is AT&T’s dollar bill-counting machines.

When at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.  Robert J. Shapiro and his co-author Kevin Hassett’s latest work, “A New Analysis of Broadband Adoption Rates By Minority Households,” is simply a rehash — spoiled leftover bologna — of their last bought-and-paid-for-study we analyzed last fall.  Both reports are tailor-made to appeal to the minority-interest groups that are part of AT&T’s Rainbow Coalition of Cash — groups that engage in dollar-a-holler advocacy of AT&T’s agenda while quietly depositing their substantial contribution checks.

The report assumes quite a lot:

• That broadband service adoption rates in minority communities are too low because heavy users are artificially keeping broadband prices too high;
• That without tiered data plans, AT&T can never afford to expand broadband service;
• That unlimited broadband tiers can never co-exist with tiered plans — it’s one-size-fits-all under today’s bad pricing model;
• That a grand exaflood is coming to swamp broadband users of all kinds, and without tiered pricing to finance upgrades, we could all drown.

For the second time, Shapiro and Hassett try to stick the bill for upgrades on so-called “heavy users,” who they suggest should pay 80 percent of the upgrade costs through higher priced broadband service.  They also want content producers to cough up — the “they can’t use my pipes for free”-argument AT&T loves.

How will customers react to paying huge surcharges on their broadband bills?  According to the report’s authors, heavy users won’t mind because they are “price-insensitive.”

Ask Time Warner Cable customers in New York, Texas, and North Carolina if they minded the prospect of paying $150 a month for broadband service they used to pay $50 a month to receive.  How about Frontier’s customers in Mound, Minnesota asked to pony up $250 a month for up to 3Mbps DSL service because they exceeded Frontier’s 5GB monthly usage allowance?

The report has several other glaring fact-gaps:

• Tiered service plans are already available industry-wide, based on broadband speed, not usage.  Low income customers can obtain cheaper broadband today, if companies decide to advertise it;
• The wounds from high broadband pricing are industry self-inflicted.  They charge $40 or more for a service their financial reports suggest costs less than $10 a month to provide;
• Providers can achieve universal broadband first by extending existing networks to rural America, upgrading them to fiber as the economy of scale from urban and suburban upgrades forces prices down;
• The authors strenuously avoid reviewing providers’ financial reports which show enormous profits even as costs continue their rapid decline;
• Many of the footnotes used to back their arguments turn out to quote self-interested parties like service providers, equipment manufacturers, and trade associations.

None of this is surprising or new in bought-and-paid-for-reports commissioned by companies to cheerlead their corporate agenda.  The last thing AT&T wants to read is a recitation of facts that disprove their arguments.

In essence, Shapiro and Hassett are arguing (with a straight face) that if providers are allowed to charge some consumers dramatically higher prices for broadband service, it will somehow convince them to upgrade their networks -and- trickle down lower prices for economically-challenged consumers.

Maybe if we let BP drill more oil wells in the Gulf, the extra profits they earn will somehow lead to better safety records for drilling and lower gas prices.  After all, with those record-busting profits earned over the past three years, the safety record for the industry is better than ever and gas is sold at fire sale prices, benefiting economically disadvantaged Americans, right?

If you or I argued this theory, we’d be drug tested.  For corporate lobbyists, it’s just another day at the office.

Here’s just how silly this really is:  You just discovered your hard drive is nearly full.  You’ve gone shopping for an upgrade, planning to spend around $100 for a new drive.  Just a few years ago, you spent around that much for a 120GB model.  Today, that same $99 would today buy you a 1.5 terabyte drive, unless you bought it from AT&T.  They want $1,500.

Newegg's price: $99.95 -- AT&T's price: $1,500

You: “Why is this drive so expensive?”

AT&T: “Over 90 percent of our customers never need a drive bigger than 120 gigabytes.  Developing a 1.5 terabyte drive costs plenty, and we feel that because you are a heavy user, you should bear the brunt of the development and manufacturing costs of all hard drives.”

You: “Sure, but this same 1.5TB drive is available in Korea for $99 dollars.  You want $1,500.  Why is there such a price difference and when does your price come down?”

AT&T: “Poor people in Korea and America can’t afford even a 60 gigabyte drive.  We are trying to make smaller drives more affordable  so in turn you should pay a higher price.  This isn’t about when AT&T will lower our price, it’s about when you will see our grand charitable vision and lower your selfish expectation of a lower price.”

You: “Wow, a corporation with socially-conscious pricing to benefit the poor?  So you are telling me that when I spend $1,500 on this hard drive, it is going to subsidize the cost of their 60 gigabyte drive, right?”

AT&T: “No, not exactly.  See, if we didn’t charge you $1,500, we’d have to raise the price on their 60 gigabyte drive and that’s not fair because they don’t need to store as much as you do.”

You: “But wait, your ‘subsidized’ 60GB drive costs three times more than what Koreans spend for a drive at least three times larger.”

AT&T: “That’s because the standard of living is different there.  Besides, why do you want to make the poor pay for your hard drive?”

You: “You aren’t making any sense.”

AT&T: “But we are about to make a whole lot of dollars!”

Dumping unlimited usage pricing only sets the profit expectations-bar higher for the broadband industry on Wall Street, regardless of what the true costs are to provide the service.  Wall Street never argues that excess profits should be spent on network upgrades and price subsidies to the poor — they want those profits paid to shareholders instead.

When the telecom industry is paying for your study, real facts never matter.  If you want them to do future business with your lobbying firm, the only acceptable conclusion is the one AT&T wants you to reach.

Tomorrow: Down the Sonecon rabbit hole