Americans have got it all wrong.  Their ‘faster is better’ obsession over broadband speed threatens to harm jobs and hurts those looking for work.

Those are the views of Stuart N. Brotman, a senior fellow at the Digital Policy Institute, which calls itself “a vehicle for faculty research that coalesces around the arenas of law, regulation, economics, intellectual property, and technology as these relate to public policy issues of local, state and national interests.”

Brotman argues that while broadband speeds matter, regulators should not be focused on speed as much as considering how broadband can help Americans find jobs.

The Agriculture and Commerce Depts. are tasked with administering $7.2 billion in stimulus funding for broadband by Sept. 30. As they decide where to place the bulk of those funds, which remain unawarded, government officials should show preference to grant and loan applicants that can use broadband to reach displaced workers more quickly.

There also need to be more funds made available to, and a greater focus on, public institutions, such as libraries, community centers, job training facilities, and adult education sites, where broadband spending may have the largest impact on jobs.

Greater broadband competition, which the FCC recognizes is essential to promote more infrastructure development and more varied pricing, also will be helpful. So, too, will be more efficient use of our spectrum resources, particularly those that have been controlled by colleges, schools, and other educational institutions for decades. Those airwaves can be better deployed to deliver high-speed wireless broadband services or leased to private-sector companies offering them.

Large telecommunications providers couldn’t have said it any better.  They have repeatedly argued broadband speeds are besides the point.

Brotman

AT&T last fall wrote the Federal Communications Commission, suggesting residential customers would do fine with broadband speeds that let them “exchange emails, participate in instant messaging, and engage in basic web-browsing.”  For AT&T, speed was less important than setting “a baseline definition of the capabilities needed to support the applications and services Americans must access to participate in the Internet economy—to learn, train for jobs, and work online….”

Verizon echoed AT&T, asking the Commission to retain the current minimum definition of broadband speed at 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream.  That allows them the chance to participate in stimulus funding projects that set the broadband speed bar low, especially in the rural areas Verizon wants to spend less on or is trying to sell-off.

“It would be disruptive and introduce confusion if the Commission were to now create a new and different definition,” Verizon said in its letter to the FCC.

Some of the smaller telecommunications companies also believe broadband speed should be de-emphasized.

Embarq, before completing a merger with CenturyTel (now CenturyLink) told the FCC 1.5Mbps broadband service has become “the most common offering.”  Embarq called that “consistent with an emphasis on economic development and jobs as many important applications, such as video conferencing are arguably possible only with 1.5 Mbps service and above. Any higher speed threshold, however, would risk defining as unserved the large number of satisfied customers of 1.5 Mbps service, which seems implausible.”

Embarq underlines the real reason providers are concerned about broadband speed — they’re not delivering it.  Once legislators or the Commission increases minimum broadband speed levels, many of these companies may find themselves below the threshold, guilty of “just enough speed to scrape by” in non-competitive markets.  That could lead to the prospect of facing federally-funded stimulus projects from others in their service areas, now deemed “unserved” or “underserved.”

Brotman further advocates that funding be focused on those that can deliver results “quickly.”

Embarq would agree with him there as well, stating “funds through grants directly to broadband providers rather than loans or other measures as this will have the greatest and quickest impact in bringing broadband to the hardest-to-serve areas.  …there is no time to wait for complete broadband maps or block grants to states for redistribution.”

Telecommunications companies would also do well by Brotman’s suggestion that federal funding for broadband projects reaching public and community service institutions should be emphasized.  As communities often request companies provide those services at a deep discount or free in return for franchise agreements or other licensing provisions, that’s money AT&T, Verizon, and others need not spend out of their own pockets.  Getting free airwaves swiped from educational institutions to deliver wireless broadband also benefits AT&T and Verizon, who are in that business as well.

When a “policy institute,” “research group,” or other seemingly unaffiliated entity starts rehashing telecommunications industry talking points, it’s time to start digging.

Buried on page five of a PDF file describing the work of the Digital Policy Institute, one comes to a section titled, “DPI Impact and Influence.”  DPI doesn’t list their financial supporters or partnerships as such.  Instead, they call them “national, collaborative relationships.”  Who does DPI collaborate with?

• AT&T
• Embarq
• National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (rural telco lobbyists)
• Verizon
• …among others.

Imagine my surprise.

But that’s not all.  Stuart N. Brotman Communications counts (or counted) among his clients AT&T, Cox Cable, National Cable and Telecommunication Association, and the New England Cable TV Association.

Perhaps Business Week would have done a better service to readers had they also disclosed that.

Fool me once... can't get fooled again!

After astroturfing their way to a statewide video franchising bill in 2007 that made AT&T millions and saved consumers nothing, the company is back again looking for more legislative goodies from the Wisconsin legislature.

This time, they want near-total deregulation of their landline telephone business.  The reason?  Their overpriced, uninspired service has caused 50 percent of their customers to disconnect, preferring to rely on cable “digital phone” products, cell phones, or Voice Over IP services like MagicJack or Vonage.  AT&T has succeeded in driving away so many of their customers, the company is left with just 675,000 landlines in the entire state.

The answer?  Deregulation!

Of course, no regulation prevents AT&T from investing in Wisconsin to win back their former customers with better service at lower prices.

AT&T apparently feels it can’t compete tied down with state consumer protection rules and those ‘oversight pests’ that make sure the company lives up to appropriate service standards.

This time, like last time, your legislative cruise director is Sen. Jeff Plale (D-South Milwaukee), a chief sponsor of Senate Bill 469, along with most of the Republican party in the state legislature.  Plale’s a special case in point — a very grateful recipient of AT&T campaign cash, and he’s no stranger to the phone giant.  In 2007, Plale accepted $1,000, the maximum allowed, from AT&T just a week before introducing the aforementioned statewide video franchising bill.  But the check from AT&T’s PAC is always just the start of the Money Party, because AT&T executives and their spouses also joined the conga line of campaign contributions on their own, spreading around money to Republican and Democratic legislators and the governor.

“It [was] impossible [in 2007] to not see the connection” between AT&T’s campaign cash and its push for the deregulation bill, Mike McCabe, executive director of the non-profit Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which monitors campaign donations, told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

AT&T’s campaign gifts starting in 2007 were also unusual because company officials had not been “particularly active” givers prior to the video franchising bill, McCabe said. “The giving is targeted.”

It still is.

Plale

The Big Money Blog, covering the atrocities committed by Wisconsin legislators hungry for campaign cash, reports that those who played along with AT&T got rewarded handsomely with contributions.  Those who voted no had their contribution checks reduced or cut out altogether.

Of course Plale can’t see the connection, probably because all that money is blocking his view.  He told the newspaper he had no idea why AT&T would max out their contribution to his campaign, despite only getting a fraction of that amount prior to the introduction of the video franchise bill.

Who does he think he’s kidding?

He’s got plenty of nerve to be back asking for more “legislative relief” just a few weeks after the verdict is in for the video franchising “competition” bill that was supposed to save Wisconsin consumers money.  It didn’t.  In fact, the rate increases just kept on coming.  While I’m sure that provided financial relief to AT&T, consumers gained little, if anything.

The reaction among the elected officials who promised all those savings?  Mild surprise and disappointment — a veritable ‘shucky darn’ and shrug of the shoulders.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports consumer groups are outraged.

They worried that less regulation could lead to less investment in the companies’ infrastructure.

That’s critical, said Charlie Higley, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, because competitors of AT&T and other local phone companies often rent portions of the network and sell their own services over it.

He said freer oversight would allow local phone companies to hide financial information and “evade appropriate regulation.”

Union representatives also were critical of the legislation, saying that deregulation steadily has driven down employment in the industry.

Despite that, Plale and most of the Republicans are in for a penny, in for a pound with AT&T.

Professor of telecommunications at the University of Wisconsin Barry Orton looked through the notes on how the bill was drafted and discovered all of the requests and language came from telecommunications industries.  There was absolutely zero consumer input in the bill.

Color me surprised.  We’ve watched telecommunications companies in North Carolina custom-write legislation and find elected officials more than happy to get such legislation introduced, especially when campaign contributions smooth the way.  In Kansas, negotiations between legislators and company officials appear to have been conducted in secret, with charges from consumer groups that legislators withheld meeting notes.

Despite the evidence these AT&T-sponsored bills don’t help consumers, Plale carries on.  He argues the bill is needed because telecommunications services are evolving too fast to ‘shackle companies with outdated regulations.’

Back for a second helping from the Wisconsin Legislative Buffet

“The 1930s models have outlived its usefulness,” he said.

Perhaps his constituents will think the same about him after their phone bills go up as quickly as their cable bills.

If the legislation doesn’t work out for you, Plale suggests you simply “switch providers.”  “[Customers] can switch to Verizon, or Sprint or Time Warner,” he said after a recent hearing on the measure. “It’s really not an issue anymore.”

Really?  What about the tens of thousands of rural Wisconsin residents that depend on AT&T for telephone and broadband service?  They don’t enjoy good reception from cell phone providers and cable television is an idea that will never come to their rural neighborhoods.  Plale can afford to pay the premium prices cell phone companies charge (AT&T should just give him a free phone).  Many cash-strapped consumers in his state cannot.

Unfortunately for rural Wisconsin, their only choice will likely be AT&T for some time to come.  For those consumers stuck with one choice, it’s not comforting to know Plale’s bill makes sure the state government can’t intervene when your phone line goes out, your bill is wrong, or you can’t get service installed.

Orton warns passing AT&T’s deregulation bill will leave the phone company essentially unregulated.  He told the Badger Herald phone companies would be less accountable under the bill, leaving the state ill-equipped to be sure all rural areas of the state were provided with adequate service.

“The phone companies argue that because of competition, they shouldn’t have regulation anymore,” Orton told the newspaper. “[They also argue] if consumers don’t like their service, they can go to another provider. But the problem is that in some places there aren’t any more providers.”

You really couldn’t do worse as a legislator than to openly admit your hand is wide open to receive AT&T campaign contributions while you advocate against the best interests of your own constituents.  It doesn’t get more shameful than that.

If you live in Wisconsin, get on the phone with your representatives in the State Assembly and Senate and tell them in no uncertain terms you oppose the giveaway deregulation bill for AT&T.  Let them know you’re watching their vote closely, particularly after the 2007 statewide video franchise bill debacle made sure you were left with less money in your wallet than before they passed it.

For months now, several groups purporting to represent the interests of minorities have busily been attacking Net Neutrality as beside the point for the poor and unserved consumer who has been left out of the broadband revolution.  To varying degrees, several of these groups have been spouting broadband industry talking points to the Federal Communications Commission, members of Congress, and the public at large.

For them, and the profitable broadband industry they indirectly represent, providing access at affordable prices is much more important than making sure providers don’t lord over the network they provide to customers.

Access vs. Openness

Consumers are perplexed by this either/or proposition.  For us, both issues are vitally important.  In urban, income-challenged areas, affordability is a crucial issue.  In rural areas, access to anything resembling broadband comes before worrying about the price.  For all concerned, making sure the Internet is not subject to corporate content control, either through direct censorship or through the far-more-common practice of pricing and policy controls, is just as important.

Providers have their self-interest on display when they promote broadband expansion — they want to receive the public dollars available from the broadband stimulus package to pay for that expansion.  Of course, every step of the way they have their fingers all over the process, from broadband mapping that protects incumbents from potential competition, defining what constitutes broadband to be as slow and as cheap to provide as possible, to implement usage rationing through Overcharging schemes like usage limits and usage-based billing, and to advocate for public policy that keeps the Money Party of fat profits running as long as possible without oversight.

The entry of minority interest groups into the debate is nothing new.  Groups of all kinds, including many who one would think wouldn’t have an opinion on Net Neutrality, are all part of the discussion.  Debates ensue, statements are fact-checked, back and forth discussion ensues.  What disturbs me is the small handful of groups who are willing to deal the race card when their own views and statements are challenged and they are threatened with losing the argument. Ill-equipped to argue the merits of their case in detail and withstand the scrutiny of fact-checking, some have introduced race into the debate to obfuscate the issues.

While I don’t doubt their sincerity and passion advocating for increased access and affordability, too many of these groups hurt their own case by accepting generous contributions (or advisory board members) from the telecommunications industry.  Consumers who witness the near total alignment of views between these groups their corporate benefactors are right to be concerned.  Many are asking if those views represent true conviction or “a dollar a holler” advocacy.

The Black Agenda Report, which created this graphic, ponders the same questions many consumers are asking

As Stop the Cap! documented just a few months ago, Broadband for America is a great example of industry-funded astroturf in action.  Large numbers of groups with no apparent connection to the broadband policy debate have found their way onto the roster of members.  From a cattle association to a Native American group that also has a burning interest in sharing their views about corporate jet landing rights, the one thing in common with virtually every last one of them was a financial contribution and/or board member working for big cable or telephone companies.  Thus far, debating a cattle association has not brought charges of being anti-cow, although I suspect consumers are anti-bull.  Debating the merits of Net Neutrality with Native American groups has not brought charges of anti-Native American bias.

Stop the Cap! itself has been on the receiving end of racial rhetoric offered by one of the anti-Net Neutrality advocates out there, Navarrow Wright.  Wright is a former corporate executive at Black Entertainment Television, and spends his days now as a self-proclaimed social media and branding expert. Last year, after exiting as CEO of Global Grind, a hip hop social network, Wright launched Maximum Leverage Solutions, which claims to be a full service consulting firm specializing in social media strategy and Internet Consulting.

Just a few months later, Wright suddenly discovered a big interest in the concept of Net Neutrality.  While he doesn’t disclose his client list, would it surprise anyone if a telecommunications company hired his services for their own “social media strategy?”

Since last fall, Wright has been generating a mix of provider talking points, Google bashing, and attacking groups that support Net Neutrality.  He’s called supporters of an open Internet “digital elites,” the FCC a player of “dangerous games” by ignoring the anti-Net Neutrality public, Free Press a group that wallows “in crazy claims and race-dividing rhetoric,” and tries to connect support for Net Neutrality as somehow representing opposition to increased broadband adoption.

Challenging and debunking his talking points isn’t difficult — they are precisely the same ones the broadband industry has used for several years now.  We invited Wright to a full, in-depth discussion about the merits of Net Neutrality and broadband adoption.  We even got the discussion started, but that’s exactly where it ended.

Wright is also incredibly defensive about the issue of industry-backed mouthpieces and astroturf efforts in general.  Suggesting Wright’s views are inaccurate brings his resume in response, which I suppose was designed to impress readers with suggestions of his built-in expertise, belied by his silence on these issues prior to last year.  In Wright’s original comment, he took our comments about economically disadvantaged Americans and made it an issue of color:

Our piece:

The letter represents the groups’ concerns that broadband for many in America is simply not available, especially for the economically disadvantaged.  They’ve been swayed by industry propaganda to characterize Net Neutrality as a threat to addressing the digital divide by making service ultimately even more expensive.

His response:

Phil, I know (at least I hope) your intent wasn’t to suggest that people of color have been “swayed by industry propaganda” and aren’t capable of thinking for ourselves on technology issues.

James Rucker, executive director of Color of Change added to the debate in late January, wondering why some civil rights groups are only too willing to support discredited industry talking points and advocate against Net Neutrality.

Rucker discovered the same thing we did.  Challenging these groups to explain their positions brings forth repetitious inch-deep talking points and total silence when a rebuttal is offered.  If pushed, they obfuscate with claims their views are being disrespected, when in reality they are only being fact checked.  Perhaps inconvenient, and even slightly embarrassing, but it’s completely appropriate for consumers to ask whether a conflict of interest exists when a group advocates for the positions of the same industry that is sending them big contributions.

The risk, of course, is to tie an organization’s good name to demonstrably false provider propaganda that some groups are willing to repeat, nearly word for word.

Take for instance Wright’s claim that Net Neutrality will force providers to spend money they would otherwise invest for the benefit of the rural, the downtrodden, and the unserved:

That brings me to the other corporate interests: the Internet service providers. It is the ISPs who must invest in, upgrade, maintain and build out the networks that allow us to receive these cool applications. While I don’t find the network side as sexy as the content side, I do know that we have to have it and ISPs need capital to build and maintain it. So the question remains who is going to pay for maintenance and upgrades to the network if Google gets a free ride? Basic economics tells us that if government requires ISPs to give Google a free ride, there’s only one other place to look for the money: consumers like you and me. What’s more, there are those who want to make it even more unfair by insisting that your big-bandwidth-using neighbor should not have to pay more than you, even if all you want to do is check email and watch some YouTube. Who will all of this hurt the most? Low-income consumers.

The only color that really matters here is green

Wright doesn’t know his American telecom history.  Let’s discuss this fiction:

1. Bruce Dixon, a writer for the Black Agenda Report says it better than anyone: “Phone companies invented the digital divide more than a century ago as their core business model, preferring to extend service to affluent areas where they could levy premium charges, rather than building networks out to reach everybody.”  The cable television industry “franchise” requirement came as a direct result of cable industry redlining, the practice of wiring wealthy neighborhoods for cable while bypassing urban and rural areas deemed “unprofitable.”  It’s the same story for broadband, and Net Neutrality is beside the point.  The number crunchers look for Return On Investment (ROI) when considering who gets on the right side of the digital divide.  If they can’t make a killing on you, they’re not going to provide you service.  If you can’t afford their asking price, which is increasing regardless of Net Neutrality, why serve you?  Ultimately it is consumers who overpay for these networks, priced well above cost, generating literally billions in profits.  Why ruin a good thing with altruistic broadband expansion at a fire sale price?
2. Regardless of what Google is doing, providers are seeking new ways to further monetize broadband service, enriching themselves even further.  Prices go up even as the costs to provide the service go down.  The old chestnut about the next door neighbor being a usage piggy is just more of the same “us vs. them” propaganda from providers who want consumers to fight amongst themselves while they run to the bank with the money.  Grandma doesn’t want her broadband service limited either, and she’s way too smart to believe a provider promising dramatic savings for less service from companies that jack up her rates year after year.
3. The best way to guarantee affordable access to broadband service is to develop a national broadband plan that provides the same kinds of “lifeline” services already available for economically disadvantaged phone customers, legislative policies that force markets open to additional competition, government oversight to ensure providers are required to provide service throughout their respective service areas, and stimulus or Universal Service Fund assistance for projects that assure access to those who simply will never pass ROI tests.  Or we can solve everything by not passing Net Neutrality?  Please.
4. Google doesn’t have a free ride.  First, consumers -pay- providers for connectivity.  Ultimately, they are the customers — content producers are not.  Nothing prohibits an ISP from offering hosting services to content producers at competitive prices.  If Google, Amazon, Netflix, or Hulu want to host their content on servers owned by Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, or AT&T, nothing stops them.  Google pays for its own connectivity to the Internet.  Customers pay for accessing it.  Now providers want to get paid again.  It’s like triple-charging for snail mail – you pay for a stamp to mail it, the person you wrote pays to receive it, and the airline that flew the letter cross country has to pay to transport it.

Remember, it’s the content that drives broadband adoption. ISP’s honestly don’t fret as much about traffic as they claim.  They just care whether they can own it, control it, and profit from it.  The evidence to back this up comes from cable and phone companies in a big hurry to stream video content over their TV Everywhere projects.  Nothing consumes bandwidth like online video, yet there they are enthusiastically embracing it.  They have to, because if they don’t control it, it could eventually lead to people dropping their cable TV subscriptions in favor of online viewing.

Wright’s blog promotes another industry favorite — the dreaded phony “exaflood” which threatens to bring chaos and disorder to our online world… unless we totally deregulate broadband and let them do whatever they want to “solve it.”  That’s more of the same.  We’ve seen the results of that for more than a decade now, and the very digital divide that Wright complains about comes as a direct consequence to letting broadband providers serve, or not serve customers as they please at the prices they want.

Wright and other civil rights groups can throw as many race cards as they like against consumers who see right through their corporate-backed agenda.  That’s because consumers know Net Neutrality isn’t an issue of black or white.  The only color that really matters here is green.

Exasperated consumers fed up with a two party system feasting on big corporate campaign contributions buying legislative favors from Washington have a point.  With a Supreme Court decision ripping the limits off the corporate ATMs installed in the halls of Congress, corporate interests will now spend more than ever to keep their agendas front and center among lawmakers.

Some consumers demand an end to the money-influence machine in Washington with public financing of campaigns, an allotment of free advertising, and strict ethics laws to prohibit corporations from buying favors from elected officials.  Others have joined a “tea party” movement that believes a wholesale slashing of the size of the federal government will help accomplish the goal of keeping government out of our lives.

The demand for real change is sincere, even if the proposed solutions differ. The debate comes after years of watching common-sense, pro-consumer public policy get watered down or blown out of the water after lobbyists descend on the Capitol like locusts swarming a field of wheat.

It’s unfortunate that those swarms don’t just wreak havoc on lawmakers — they’ve also quietly infested the “tea party” movement that advocates reform.

It’s akin to the Boston Tea Party being sponsored and organized by the East India Company.

After this weekend’s “tea party” convention in Nashville, it’s more apparent than ever that teabags come with corporate strings attached.

Perhaps that shouldn’t be surprising, considering the modern reincarnation of the “tea party” was channeled by a business news network. About a year ago, CNBC reporter Rick Santelli ranted on air about the federal government bailing out Americans underwater on their mortgages after the housing market collapsed.

“We’re thinking of having a Chicago tea party in July,” Santelli offered.

For Stop the Cap! readers, the names and groups affiliated with the “tea party” movement are already familiar.  FreedomWorks’ Dick Armey (R-TX), the former House majority leader in Congress openly considers himself a leader in the movement.  But his day job involves creating fake “grassroots” campaigns for corporate interests, including Verizon and AT&T.  Phil Kerpen from Americans for Prosperity promptly registered “taxpayerteaparty.com” and joined the movement while continuing to represent the broadband industry against Net Neutrality and against municipal broadband network competition.

Kerpen’s group should be called “Americans for the Prosperity of Big Telecom.” They oppose Net Neutrality to the degree Kerpen appeared twice on Glenn Beck’s Fox News show, mostly as an enabler of Beck’s paranoid rantings about Net Neutrality.  After two sessions of Beck’s chalkboard conspiracy theater, the host had Kerpen nodding in agreement to the proposition that Net Neutrality was Maoist.  The group also harassed North Carolina residents with robocalls opposing municipal broadband service that would bring fiber optic connectivity to residents.

Americans for Prosperty's Phil Kerpen on Glenn Beck's show opposing Net Neutrality

Wherever common-sense pro-consumer public policy threatens to become law, the corporate-backed lobbying groups take the anti-consumer view and hoodwink consumers into supporting the corporate agenda.  Trying to convince Americans they are better off taking the anti-consumer position takes a lot of money.  You can’t argue your position beneath your corporate banner.  That’s too transparent.  It’s much more effective to spend tens of millions on creating fake “grassroots” groups with no visible ties to their corporate benefactor.  You need to fund so-called “independent” research groups to cook up phony reports that prove pre-conceived corporate positions.  Writing big fat checks to elected officials can’t hurt either.

Billions in profits are at stake.  In 2008 it was the oil industry and the ridiculous spike in energy prices.  Millions were spent to keep oil and gas interests free from meddlesome Washington and their pesky investigations.  In 2009, the health care industry spend tens of millions of dollars to fight health care reform, while Wall Street bankers tried to keep up with tens of millions of their own to preserve the special favors they earned from being “too big to fail.”

Right after big oil, health care, and banks comes the telecommunications industry.

Last Friday, Verizon had the dubious distinction of appearing on USA Today’s top-20 big spenders.  The only good news is the company only spent $17,820,000 in 2009 on their lobbying efforts.  That’s down from 2008, when Verizon spent $18,020,000.

Not to be too outdone, the cable television industry handed over part of your rate increase to their own lobbying machine.  In 2008, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association spent $14,500,000.  But your rates went up in 2009, and so did their total spending on an army of lobbyists — $15,980,000 worth.

That buys a lot of plastic grass.

Where does the money go?  Among Verizon’s benefactors and friends:

Consumers for Cable Choice: Common Cause notes Verizon spent $75,000 in just one year on this group, which fights for statewide cable franchises, mostly benefiting phone company cable TV from Verizon and AT&T.  While this short cut may bring consumers a choice in providers, it doesn’t bring them any savings.

FreedomWorks: Adamantly opposed to Net Neutrality, FreedomWorks also backs those statewide video franchises, thanks to generous fees paid by AT&T and Verizon to take those views.

The Progress and Freedom Foundation: They define “progress” much differently than consumers.  Opposed to a-la-carte pricing for cable television packages (letting you choose and pay only for the channels you want), P&F also hates Net Neutrality and the concept of government issuing franchises for cable and telco TV in the first place.  Let them dig up your streets and backyards without oversight!  The group receives so much corporate telecommunications money, it would be easier to list the companies that don’t cut them a check.

The American Legislative Exchange Council: They exchange Verizon’s money in return for strong opposition to Net Neutrality.  They are at the forefront of opposition to municipal broadband networks, with a staff of lawyers who “helpfully” draft legislation for state lawmakers to ban such networks.  Part of the broadband protectionist racket, ALEC makes sure even unprofitable, unserved areas stay that way.  ALEC believes Net Neutrality will harm states’ economies, which would be true if a state was defined as a corporate broadband provider.

New Millennium Research Council: They “develop workable, real-world solutions to the issues and challenges confronting policy makers, primarily in the fields of telecommunications and technology.”  This so-called “think tank” issues suspect reports mostly for the benefit of Congress, which some members use as cover when voting against their constituents and for the provider.  You’re certain to hear elected officials railing against pro-consumer policies quoting liberally from these industry-backed “think tanks,” which provide a patina of independent legitimacy to corporate-backed propaganda. Need to scare people with stories about an overburdened Internet that will crash and burn without “network management” that slows service and enriches providers?  No problem! (That the group has had Verizon employees working for them doesn’t hurt either.)

Broadband for America: This relatively new group is infested with Verizon and AT&T contributions from top to bottom.  In addition to direct contributions from big telecom interests, virtually every single public interest non-profit group on their roster has an AT&T or Verizon lobbyist on their board of directors, or accepts generous contributions from the telecom industry.

Frontier of Freedom: Another so-called “free market” group advocating deregulation, FF doesn’t disclose its donors and considers itself independent, but a familiar pattern belies that.  Frontier of Freedom advocates statewide video franchises and has even run advertising promoting telco-friendly legislation in states like Texas.  The cable industry was displeased because Frontier of Freedom used to represent their best interests but suddenly flipped sides in 2005.  Money talks.

MyWireless.org: “MyWireless.org is a national non-profit consumer advocacy organization” the site declares, without bothering to disclose it is really a sock puppet of the cell phone industry’s trade group CTIA – The Wireless Association.  Ostensibly interested in stripping taxes and government-mandated surcharges off of cell phone bills, the group also opposes Net Neutrality and consumer protection laws.  It’s a bit difficult to call yourself pro-consumer when you oppose a California and Minnesota consumer Bill of Rights that would have required a 30 day penalty-free trial of cell phone service, expanded a toll-free complaint hotline, set minimum service standards, and required easy-to-understand billing.

NetCompetition: Another front group bought and paid for by the industry it seeks to zealously protect.  Adamantly opposed to Net Neutrality, NetCompetition also spends its time Google-bashing and attacking Free Press, seen as one of the strongest advocates for Net Neutral policies and consumer protection from provider abuses.  Their member page explains everything.

The unfortunate part of all this is that many participants of the “tea party” movement seem blissfully unaware of the corporate manipulation of their movement, all happening barely beneath the surface.  Millions of dollars are flowing into the bank accounts of astroturf groups doing all they can to channel public anger against Washington into something they can use to benefit their corporate backers.  The end result may be the ultimate feedback loop — consumers already angered by Washington not listening to their needs and concerns compounded by providers picking their pockets.  That bitter tea may be easy to brew but impossible to swallow.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Phoney Baloney Ad.flv[/flv]

Phoney Baloney: The National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the cable industry lobbying group, ran this hissyfit ad to combat Verizon and AT&T outmaneuvering the cable industry over statewide video franchising laws. (1 minute)

The issue of copyright enforcement is a thorny one, and Stop the Cap! doesn’t spend a lot of time dwelling on it, except when it sneaks its way into our issues.

CNET News started a brush fire yesterday when they quoted a Verizon representative who claimed the company had been kicking off users who use peer to peer (typically torrent) software to exchange copyrighted material.  The gist of the piece was that Verizon has been receiving copyright infringement notices from copyright enforcers and they’ve been notifying their customers to stop or risk service suspension.

“We’ve cut some people off,” Verizon Online spokeswoman Bobbi Henson told CNET. “We do reserve the right to discontinue service. But we don’t throttle bandwidth like Comcast was doing. Verizon does not have bandwidth caps.”

With that purported admission, the story was off and running.  We received several news tips about it from readers.

But this morning, Henson claims she was misquoted and the company has not actually suspended anyone’s account, but reserves the right to do so.

For now, anyway, it appears there has been no policy change at Verizon.  The company dispatches canned e-mail messages to account holders targeted in copyright complaints asking them to stop the infringing activity.  Verizon claims most don’t have to be warned twice.  That’s a commonly found policy at most providers.

The movie and music industry have reduced the number of lawsuits it brings against alleged violators, but that doesn’t mean they’ve given up the fight.

Instead, both industries have launched lobbying and astroturf efforts to inject copyright protection into the broadband expansion and Net Neutrality debates.  The Arts+Labs “think tank” was a perfect example of that, trying to conflate Net Neutrality with piracy in the music industry’s dog and pony show performance at the New York City Council Technology In Government Committee hearing regarding Net Neutrality.

The industry hopes it can insert something akin to a “three strikes” provision into telecommunications law that would bar repeat copyright violators from having Internet access. Unfortunately, history has shown that the bar has been set so low as to what represents “proof,” a mere allegation under these policies could be sufficient to put your finances and potential broadband access in peril.