Phillip "Will Wait for it to Hit Netflix" Dampier

Hollywood studios have a proposition to make.

How would you like to gain access to the latest Hollywood releases on your cable, satellite, or broadband connection even while those movies are still playing in area theaters?

The Motion Picture Association of America says it’s willing to let you watch first-run Hollywood blockbusters from home, but in return, they want the right to control what you can do with your television set.

Time’s up for you to make up your mind.  The Federal Communications Commission has decided you were going to say “yes” to this proposition anyway, so they went ahead and approved it on your behalf.

Specifically, the MPAA appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to get approval for its proposed Selectable Output Control technology.  You probably never heard of that, but the concept actually has been around for a few years now.  When movie studios float trial balloons about enabling the technology, public interest and consumer groups start hollering and it typically gets shelved for awhile.  Not this time.

While the public policy debate continued, chances are the manufacturer of your television set or monitor manufactured after 2004 has probably already included some support for SOC — just waiting to hand over control of your television to Hollywood studios, cable, satellite, or IPTV companies.  On May 7th, while we were debating Net Neutrality, the FCC released its order approving the Hollywood Remote Control Confiscation Act (my name sounds far better than the FCC’s — Petition for Waiver of the Commission’s Prohibition on the Use of Selectable Output Control.)

Here’s how it works:

Let’s say your cable company wants to offer you Iron Man II through pay-per-view starting today.  It’s a movie currently playing in many theaters nationwide.  The MPAA believes there is compelling demand among the elderly, the home-bound, and the too-lazy-to-haul-themselves-to-the-Movieplex to make it available in the comfort of your own home on early pay per view.  However, Hollywood and your local cable company don’t want you making copies of the movie to hand out to all your friends.  With SOC technology, that becomes less of a problem because the cable company can selectively disable the outputs on the back of your television that don’t use copy control technology.  That means old fashioned analog outputs can be disabled for up to 90 days during SOC-enabled programming, making sure you cannot record any of the content without the approval of the studio or your cable company.

Is it worth losing control of your television to watch Iron Man 2 before it arrives on DVD?

Certain digital outputs will still function, as long as they support robust anti-recording/copying technology.  No more time-shifting SOC-protected content on digital video recorders to watch later, no more analog VCR taping of shows the industry doesn’t believe you have a right to record anyway.

For decades, Americans have fought for fair use rights that permit home recording and copying for personal use.  The entertainment industry has never fully accepted that, and have eroded away the ability for consumers to make legitimate personal use of content they have already purchased with digital rights management schemes, copy protection, region coding, and other limiting technologies.

SOC technology effectively forfeits all of your rights.  The only consumer protection the FCC provides is a requirement that your cable, satellite, or broadband provider warn you when they are employing SOC anti-recording technology.  At least you’ll know when your home recording rights are being trampled.

If your television set doesn’t have support for SOC built-in, the FCC just made your television set obsolete.  Write and thank them.  While initial deployment of SOC is only expected to be used for “early pay per view,” don’t believe for a moment such powerful controlling technology available to entertainment companies won’t be used in the future for other types of content they don’t want you recording.  Premium movie channels like HBO or Cinemax would be obvious examples.  TV networks that would like to sell you their network shows on DVD or through online services might find it worth their while to disable your ability to record your favorite shows.  If you don’t have an SOC-capable set, it’s likely you won’t be able to access protected programming at all.

With the ongoing convergence of broadband, television, and other forms of home entertainment distribution, SOC is a foot in the door to permit third parties to make decisions about how you can view or use content you’ve already paid to receive.  That’s a bad precedent.  The FCC approval of this gift to the entertainment industry is a travesty that needs to be reversed.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCTV Kansas City FCC Ruling Could Bring New Movies Into Homes 5-16-10.flv[/flv]

KCTV-TV in Kansas City ignored the consumer’s loss of control over their own television set to focus instead on the implications for theater owners, who may become natural allies with consumers in opposition of SOC.  (1 minute)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Public Knowledge – Selectable Output Control.flv[/flv]

Public Knowledge developed this web-ready video that takes a less formal look at SOC and its impact on your consumer rights.  (3 minutes)

West Virginia residents are assured of an indefinite future with 1-3Mbps usage-capped “broadband” as Frontier won conditional approval of its plan to assume control of the majority of the state’s landlines.

Frontier Communications, the phone company with the 5 gigabyte monthly acceptable usage allowance, won approval from West Virginia’s Public Service Commission after nearly a year of opposition from several unions and consumer advocacy groups.  The opposition, led by the Communications Workers of America, charged that Frontier’s balance sheet made it impossible for the company to fulfill promises to deliver quality phone and broadband service to the majority of the state’s residents.  Consumer groups, including Stop the Cap!, argued Frontier’s DSL broadband service is inadequate for the state’s needs, because it typically only provides 1-3Mbps speed and is usage-limited for residential customers.

Verizon’s history of bad service in the state helped drive some to believe Frontier can do better

Verizon’s West Virginia division has frequently achieved a poor rating among many West Virginians upset with the company’s service record and broadband deployment.  Last Monday, the PSC announced that Verizon’s service in the state was so poor, it ordered the company to place $72.4 million in an irrevocable escrow account to be used to improve the quality of service.  The PSC found Verizon’s disinterest in delivering service in West Virginia had resulted in the deterioration of Verizon’s essential infrastructure.

The PSC-ordered escrow account will be used to maintain and improve everything from restoring copper wiring to vegetation control and pole replacement.

With a history of complaints like that, it comes as no surprise West Virginians are ready to wave goodbye to Verizon, hoping for better times with Frontier Communications.

Bray Cary

Bray Cary, a TV station owner in West Virginia, has hosted editorials on his network of local stations across the state promoting the transaction, believing it will bring a better future for the state’s telecommunications needs.  Just two weeks ago, he demanded the PSC make a decision on the proposed merger, claiming the state needs a “modern, cutting edge communication system that will bring high-speed Internet to every corner of this state.”  Unfortunately for Cary, there is nothing from Frontier that comes close to “cutting edge,” with the exception of the company’s brazen Internet Overcharging scheme now being tested in Minnesota that threatens to bring $250 monthly broadband bills to some residents.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOWK Charleston State Must Act on Verizon-Frontier Deal 5-4-10.flv[/flv]

WOWK-TV’s Bray Cary criticized the West Virginia Public Service Commission for stalling on a decision to move forward the Verizon-Frontier landline transfer in the state.  Just about ten days later, the PSC conditionally approved the deal.  [Video problems were a part of the original clip] (Aired: May 4, 2010 — 1 minute)

Frontier specializes in delivering slow-speed DSL service to most of its rural service areas, usually less than 3Mbps in speed.  Even in its largest service area, Rochester, N.Y., the company’s broadband options are an also-ran against the far faster and more reliable cable modem service from Time Warner Cable, which also beats Frontier’s out-the-door price.

Unfortunately, West Virginian media has never given important details to residents about the specific services Frontier is willing and able to offer residential customers.  It also never informed customers about the important limitations the company attaches to its “high speed Internet” Cary hopes to see available in every corner of the state.

Sometimes change for change’s sake is not an improvement.

The PSC attaches conditions to its approval

The Commission did not grant blanket approval to the transaction.  The PSC is requiring that Frontier:

• Honors all existing obligations of Verizon following the close of the sale, including the currently effective Retail Quality Service Plan approved by the Commission to continue through at least July 2, 2011.
• Makes capital investments in Verizon of $30 million during the second half of 2010, $75 million in 2011 (including $12 million targeted at service quality), $63 million in 2012 and $63 million in 2013.
• Makes additional capital investments of at least $48 million to increase broadband deployment and subscription in the Verizon service territory.
• Expands broadband availability in Verizon service areas so that by no later than the end of the fourth year following the close of the sale, access to broadband service will be available to no less than 85 percent of the households within Verizon service areas.
• Locates its Southeast regional headquarters in Charleston, WV, after closing the sale. Charleston will be Frontier’s Southeastern regional headquarters, and will be a major employment center for Frontier in the region. It will be the hub for engineering, technical, operation and executive personnel for Frontier’s operations in West Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
• Adopts all of Verizon’s tariffs, price lists and contracts, including long distance, under the same terms and conditions at closing.
• Caps all regulated rates subject to jurisdiction of the Commission for one year after close of the transaction.
• Provides E-911 functionality provided by Verizon prior to close.
• Waives early termination fees for current Verizon customers participating in a Verizon bundled service package for the first 90 days after closing.

Reactions from all over

“We’re pleased the commission has approved the transaction. The record developed in this case provides comprehensive evidence and assurances that the transaction with Frontier Communications is in the public interest and will provide many benefits to West Virginia residents, including increased investment and broadband availability in the state, while protecting jobs and promoting employment.”

— Verizon-West Virginia President B. Keith Fulton

“We’re in the process of evaluating the order. After full review we’ll look at what we can do that will best serve West Virginia consumers and CWA members. Of course, we’re disappointed but we’re heartened by the fact that at least one person on the three-member commission agreed with us and more than 80 legislators, several county commissions and a broad coalition of consumer, union and first responder organizations that this deal is too risky and not in the public’s interest. The split decision shows our arguments about the deal had validity.”

— Communications Workers of America, District 2 Vice President Ron Collins

Byron L. Harris heads the Consumer Advocate Division of the West Virginia Public Service Commission

“There are many areas of West Virginia that will always be dependent on landlines, absent some sea of change in technology. Those are the people I’m most concerned about. They’re the truly captive customers of now Verizon and, in the future, Frontier.”

— West Virginia Public Service Commission’s consumer advocate Byron Harris

“We’ve seen how Wall Street’s investments can backfire. Like Frontier today, Wall Street once put its confidence in Global Crossing and that led to a disastrous bankruptcy. We’re concerned that the Rochester-area and other existing Frontier properties may be starved to fund this expansion.”

— John Pusloskie, President of CWA Local 1170 in Rochester, N.Y.

“Today’s approval is a welcome and important step. Our goal is to gain the approval of the FCC so that we can close the transaction and begin bringing its benefits to consumers and businesses.”

— Maggie Wilderotter, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Frontier

West Virginian media covers the conditional approval

A handful of television stations covered the conditional approval, most without much depth.  West Virginian newspapers covered the fight between Verizon and Frontier and the unions and consumer groups, but no paper really provided in-depth coverage into the challenges of West Virginia broadband and what precisely Frontier is capable of providing to solve it.  Consumers will discover soon enough that West Virginia has yet again gotten the short end of the online stick.  Only this time, they better not wave it around too much — it might exceed your monthly stick-waving allowance.

[flv width=”500″ height=”395″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOWK Charleston Union – Verizon-Frontier Deal Bad for W.Va., Verizon Responds 5-14-10.flv[/flv]

WOWK-TV in Charleston delivered the most substantial report on the sale, including this brief interview with PSC spokeswoman Sarah Robertson.  (2 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTAP Parkersburg Verizon-Frontier Deal Approved 5-14-10.flv[/flv]

WTAP-TV in Parkersburg ran this brief in-studio report about the Verizon-Frontier approval.  (1 minute)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WDTV Bridgeport Verizon Sells Land Lines to Frontier 5-14-10.mp4[/flv]

WDTV-TV in Bridgeport explained the requirements of the conditional approval.  This was the only report on the approval that included the opposition’s perspective.  (1 minute)

Sen. David Hoyle (D-NC)

Retiring North Carolina state senator David Hoyle wants to save North Carolina cities from themselves.  Proclaiming that “cities are getting into the broadband business with little or no experience and competing with private enterprise who pay the taxes,” Hoyle continues his push to put a stop to municipal broadband projects in North Carolina.

A week after Hoyle and a few allies on the Revenue Laws Study Committee pushed forward a draft bill that would require public referendums that could be triggered even when making basic repairs to community-owned fiber networks, IndyWeek reports Hoyle doesn’t exactly come to the debate with clean hands.

Rebekah Cowell, in a piece called “Hoyle to municipal broadband: Drop Dead,” notes Time Warner Cable’s PAC contributed $6,000 to Hoyle’s final campaign in 2009.

Hoyle told Cowell he is not swayed by Time Warner Cable’s deep involvement in pushing the legislation forward, despite the generous contribution to his campaign coffers.

“The lobbyists don’t influence me,” he said. “I’m in the pocket of the people that provide jobs for this state, and Time Warner Cable employs 8,500 in this state, and I can’t imagine any one that would want to compete with that.”

Time Warner Cable told IndyWeek it doesn’t philosophically oppose municipal broadband projects, and claims Hoyle’s bill would only apply to a city that chooses to take taxpayer money to build a competing network as if it were a private provider. “We just believe that they should have to operate under the same rules as the private provider,” Melissa Buscher, director of media relations at Time Warner Cable told Cowell. “We do believe people in the community should have a say-so in how large amounts of public monies are spent.”

Buscher

Yet the legislation proposed by Hoyle actually impacts projects that receive no public taxpayer dollars.  Under his proposal, any municipal project seeking private bondholders has to endure an endless series of referendums on everything from initial system approval, construction, refinancing debt, extending service, upgrading the network, and even when basic system repairs are needed.

Time Warner Cable’s concern for public tax dollars only seems to extend to their potential competitors.  The cable operator itself gratefully accepted public tax dollars from the state Department of Commerce, the city of Charlotte, and the county of Mecklenburg to construct a $29 million dollar headquarters building in Charlotte.  Even in smaller communities, the cable operator enjoyed benefits from taxpayers who didn’t have a “say-so in how public monies are spent.”  In December, Marble Cliff Village Council approved an economic development agreement with Time Warner Communications including a five-year tax abatement worth $100,000.

North Carolina’s phone companies also benefit from state taxpayers.  As IndyWeek reports:

A 2009 analysis by Democracy North Carolina [shows] two telecommunications companies, AT&T and Embarq, both benefited from tax breaks on the purchases of telephone equipment that costs the state an estimated $31 million annually in lost revenue. In 2008, political action committees for AT&T and Embarq contributed $140,500 and $151,250, respectively, to legislative candidates, statewide candidates and party committees.

Hoyle apparently has no problem with losing that tax revenue.

Hoyle’s claims that municipal broadband projects hurt North Carolina consumers are untrue in cities like Wilson, the only community in North Carolina that successfully avoided a Time Warner Cable rate increase this year.

Time Warner customers in Wilson are benefiting from Greenlight’s competition. According to a December 2009 presentation before the House Select Committee on High Speed Internet Access in Rural and Urban Areas, Time Warner raised its prices for basic service in the Triangle—as much as 52 percent in Cary—but did not impose any rate hike in Wilson. Nor did the company increase prices in Wilson for the digital sports and games tier, while Triangle customers paid 41 percent more.

Cable and broadband consultant Catharine Rice of Action Audits gave the presentation; she advocates for municipalities that want to build their own networks.

The bill could hurt Wilson’s Greenlight service, even though it’s been installed. “The way the legislation is worded, and how I interpret it,” says Ovittore, “is that if the city of Wilson … had a resident who was digging in their yard—let’s say putting a new mailbox in—and accidentally damaged a strand of fiber, before that strand could be repaired the city would have to go through a referendum and vote, spending endless taxpayer dollars.”

A public referendum could also be required if Wilson wanted to connect an additional household to their existing system, Ovittore said.

Hoyle says that of the $30 million to build the network, Wilson used $12 million of it from the utility account. “People there are raising hell about their electricity bill, and it’s just not right,” he said.

Brian Bowman, Wilson’s public affairs manager, said the city borrowed the $28 million on the private market. As for Hoyle’s $12 million figure, Bowman said, much less—only $3.6 million— had been set aside from the electric fund by City Council in 1989; it was re-designated in 1999. “It has always been part of our funding package,” he said. As for the electric bills, Bowman said they were higher earlier this year because of the particularly cold winter, not the cost of the network.

Wilson accomplished its municipal broadband system without spending a nickle of taxpayer money.  Other North Carolina communities considering similar projects would run into overwhelming problems overcoming Hoyle’s telecom-friendly legislation because of its referendum requirements.

Hoyle told IndyWeek he doesn’t see the need for such projects anyway, claiming fast broadband is already universally available across the state.

“I’ve heard that BS, and it’s just not true—period,” he said. “Anybody that needs service has got served in this state and will continue to get served.”

Hoyle’s words sound a lot like those of Time Warner Cable, which also contends broadband availability is not an issue. “Based on a map of the state done in 2009 by Connected Nation, more than 92 percent of homes in North Carolina have broadband available to them,” said Buscher. “A vast majority of those have two wireline providers, some have wireless providers, plus satellite offers broadband to literally every home in the state. This isn’t an availability issue. Anyone who wants Internet service can get it today.”

Those claims are dubious. Chatham County Commissioner Tom Vanderbeck has advocated for rural broadband access since 2006 in an area where pockets still have only dial-up and DSL. Vanderbeck was recently appointed by the General Assembly to serve on the e-NC Authority, which promotes statewide rural broadband. He calls Hoyle’s bill anti-competitive, one that would discriminate against local government.

[…]

“Requiring a vote, when you have deep pockets that can fight it and put up as much money as they want, while making the project sound like a waste of taxpayer dollars—that would be a tragedy,” she adds.

Anyone who proclaims satellite fraudband represents a credible broadband competing alternative should be forced to use it.

Connected Nation, which Buscher relies on for her numbers, has a board dominated by telecommunications company executives, particularly AT&T.  With their private provider-stacked leadership, they can draw the maps anyway they please, particularly in ways that suggest there isn’t a broadband problem in North Carolina… or anywhere else.  Not as long as they are running it.

While the Federal Communications Commission hand-wrings over how far to dip its toe into the shark-infested water of corporate-controlled broadband, Finland has launched a major investigation over charges of price-fixing and collusion by the country’s major broadband providers.

The Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority (FICORA), equivalent to the Federal Communications Commission or the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, started the investigation over what it calls “gross overpricing” after receiving complaints from TeliaSonera that it was forced to pay outrageously high “local loop” prices to the former state-owned incumbent telephone company, Elisa Oyj.

The “local loop” refers to a part of a telecommunications network used for providing broadband subscriptions to end-customers. When an operator sells broadband outside its own operating area, it must lease part of a local loop from the operating area’s telecom operator. The sound pricing of the local loop market is a prerequisite for telecom operators to be able to compete in each other’s operating areas and thus be able to provide inexpensive broadband services to consumers.

“The authority has discovered flaws and problems in the pricing of several telecom operators, and there is even reason to suspect that unlawful activity occurs in the broadband market,” FICORA said in a statement.

Within three months, Elisa must reduce its pricing to a level based on actual costs and deliver new price tariffs and cost calculations to FICORA. According to FICORA’s calculations, the unreasonability of pricing is significant. For example, the monthly price of a local loop must be reduced by more than 20 percent.

“The objective of the provisions is to prevent operators with significant market power from enjoying a monopolistic pricing capability, promote competition and thereby ensure versatile and reasonably-priced telecom services for citizens,” FICORA states.

Finland telecommunications law does not allow corporate providers to gain the upper hand over consumers.  FICORA aggressively oversees the Finnish broadband market to ensure no individual company or group of companies can collude to set prices artificially high, discourage competition, or deliver sub-standard service in non-competitive areas.

Finland was the first country in the world to declare broadband a universal right, and every citizen should have access to at least 1Mbps service no later than this July.  By 2015, Finland plans to deliver universal access to at least 100Mbps service.  Finland is a world leader in broadband adoption — as of 2007 a full 79 percent of Finns regularly access the Internet.  With universal access a national priority, FICORA referees the private marketplace to make sure the Finnish people benefit the most from the broadband revolution.

The Authority has warned other operators to either voluntarily review their pricing, or face the potential consequences of further investigations extending into the summer and autumn of this year.

NoNetBrutality characterizes itself as a "grassroots campaign," but new evidence suggests it's actually just another telecom industry-backed astroturf group pretending to represent consumer interests.

On April 12th, a new voice joined the opposition to Net Neutrality reforms.  That was the date someone registered the domain name NoNetBrutality.com.  Just a few short days later, the group launched a basic website with a mission:

NoNetBrutality.com is a grassroots campaign with a triple mission. It seeks:

(1) to raise public awareness for the imminent threat of government take-over of the internet,
(2) to bring all net neutrality opponents together under one common banner,
(3) to petition the FCC not to go ahead with its attempts to regulate the internet.

NoNetBrutality.com was initiated by six liberty-minded activists from six different countries who fear that the current attempts of the U.S. government to restrict access to the internet might soon be followed by other governments if we don’t fight these flawed and dangerous ideas now – before they take root elsewhere.

The NoNetBrutality.com campaign was created by Kristin McMurray (United States), Yolanda Talavera (Nicaragua), Vincent De Roeck (Belgium), David MacLean (Canada), Huafang Li (China) and Aykhan Nasibli (Azerbaidjan), and formally launched in Washington D.C. on April 14th, 2010.

The group’s talking points about Net Neutrality are eerily in lockstep with those distributed by large phone and cable interests who oppose net freedom:

Net neutrality will take away incentives to invest and innovate – that means the internet will stop improving. Do you really want an internet czar to run the worldwide web and bureaucrats in charge of cyberspace?

Net neutrality will literally put the internet in “neutral.” Demand for Youtube, Bittorrent and streaming will grow, but who will pay for additional bandwidth if they aren’t allowed to charge for it anymore? Less options and less freedom for the consumers will be the ultimate consequence of these flawed ideas.

The FCC and others aim to regulate the internet in the same way as they control the television… There’s the real censorship! What will be the next step? Once the government has the mechanism in place to restrict internet access and to set prices, it is only a tiny step towards content control and taxes on internet use.

Everybody agrees that the internet is a resounding free market success story. If it isn’t broken, why fix it?

You know what that means — that “grassroots campaign” is in reality yet another corporate-backed astroturf campaign desperately trying to hide its true backer — the telecommunications industry.

Here’s what NoNetBrutality left out of its “facts”:

1. YouTube is owned by Google, which is a strong believer in Net Neutrality.
2. No online service has suffered more at the hands of Internet Service Providers’ throttles than Bittorrent.  Net Neutrality would ban those throttles.
3. The group ignores the multi-billion dollars in profit the broadband industry earns today from Internet service that is increasing in price at the same time costs to provide it are rapidly falling.
4. The FCC proposes no content controls for broadband — only consumer protections to prohibit providers from manipulating broadband traffic for money.
5. Everyone does not agree that the Internet is a “resounding free market success story.”  In fact, the United States has lost its former lead on Internet speed and adoption, and today is still dropping.  We now have worse service than many Asian and East European countries, and providers are trying to test new Internet Overcharging schemes t0 limit consumption and increase prices even higher.  That’s success?  Only for them.

So who is NoNetBrutality.com and Kristin McMurray, the American creator of the campaign?

McMurray's day job is to develop and run social media campaigns for corporate interests seeking to build support for their public policy agenda

Kristin McMurray is a social media strategist — a hired gun for corporate interests that want social-network-street-cred but don’t exactly know how to create an authentic-looking campaign that fulfills their corporate agenda.

McMurray has a history with corporate-backed conservative think tanks, particularly Americans for Limited Government, a group the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity reports is 99 percent funded by three unnamed sources.  The group has routinely denied requests to identify where their backing comes from.  She also was hired to run a campaign for a climate change denial group.

McMurray tracks her site visitors carefully with Alterian’s SM2, a social media monitoring and analysis solution designed for PR and Marketing professionals. Alterian SM2 “helps you track conversations, review positive/negative sentiment for your brand, clients, competitors and partners across social media channels such as blogs, wikis, micro-blogs, social networks, video/photo sharing sites and real-time alerts.”

Grassroots this isn’t.

Accidental Evidence: The Consequences of An Exposed PowerPoint Presentation

Someone left their PowerPoint slides laying around for anyone to pick up and review.  That turned out to be about as foolish as the guy who left his field test version of Apple’s newest iPhone in a bar.

Now the truth can be told.

Think Progress managed to obtain a copy of the presentation, and it says quite a bit about just how much grassroots are actually growing at NoNetBrutality.com.  Let’s put it this way, if you were allergic to actual grass, you’d have no problems at all rolling around in NoNetBrutality’s astroturf.

It turns out NoNetBrutality is the creature of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation and Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, itself heavily backed by corporate interests.

And you thought it was “six liberty-minded activists from six different countries.”  Not so much.

Atlas, which counts among its proud moments a corporate strategy to protect Big Tobacco, helps corporations coordinate their front group strategies.  Norquist takes corporate agendas and spins them into grass roots efforts in return for money.  He was caught up in the Jack Abramoff scandal when the disgraced lobbyist promised one of Norquist’s front groups $50,000 in exchange for “grassroots” support.

Of course, you aren’t supposed to know any of this.  Groups like NoNetBrutality are designed to hide their true ties and claim they are run by ordinary concerned citizens making their individual voices heard.  Too bad that PowerPoint presentation blew the lid off by telling a much different story.

One of the PowerPoint slides that wasn't supposed to become public knowledge

Net Neutrality is like what China does: “Putting policemen on every corner, on the street or on the Internet.” — Grover Norquist

Norquist’s bizarre interpretation of Net Neutrality shines through in NoNetBrutality’s own campaign.  On one of the PowerPoint slides, NoNetBrutality even cooks up a Chinese blog to underline Norquist’s world view that Net Neutrality can be compared with Chinese government censorship.

Every astroturf group has a target audience.  NoNetBrutality is no different:

Target Groups

• Libertarian like minded Internet users and video gamers
• Fiscal and Social Conservative Activists, Campaigners and Think Tanks
• Internet Service Providers and Communications companies
• Policy makers (Legislators, Regulators, Public officials)

For groups like NoNetBrutality, getting corporate and conservative support means being a cog in the wheel at Grover’s infamous Wednesday strategy sessions.  One of the PowerPoint slides calls attention to just how important these meetings are in the effort to coordinate opposition to consumer-friendly broadband reform.

Now that the cat is out of the bag, outraged consumers have invaded the group’s primary social media outlets.  Their Facebook page is now loaded with comments from those upset about the fact the entire effort is little more than another bought-and-paid-for deception effort from the telecom industry.  Twitter is now used more to expose the group than to promote it.

The ironic part is that the very group that seems so alarmed by the prospect of “government censorship of the Internet” has no problems censoring its own Facebook page to remove posts that it determines are “off topic” or “not polite.”

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

[Update Wednesday 3:20pm — This “group” came out of the closet this morning as a “class project” funded by Atlas, and attacked Think Progress for overreaching as to the group’s own importance in the Net Neutrality debate.  You can read my extended thoughts on today’s developments in the Comments section.  In short, I think today’s revelations may actually do even more damage to their credibility than earlier thought.  What does it say about a group of people willing to attend a “school” (and the “school” itself) that actively teaches how to develop and launch highly-deceptive fake grassroots campaigns designed to fool consumers?  Today they are downplaying the entire affair as “funny,” but if you were a visitor to their website, would you be laughing to learn the group isn’t really run by “six liberty-minded activists from six different countries” but rather those budding to learn the craft of sock-puppetry?

I think it’s sad some people have a moral code that says intentional deception in a public policy fight is just fine.  When you lie to your supporters and opponents about who you really are, and then say it’s “funny” when you come clean later,  they are left with little more than to ponder whether you were lying to them then or lying to them now.]