Glenn Beck, who is America’s biggest argument for mental health parity in health care reform, has turned his paranoid ravings to the subject of Net Neutrality, suggesting the whole concept is one giant government conspiracy to take over the Internet.  To prove the point, he brings on Phil Kerpen, policy director and master astroturfer for “Americans for Prosperity,” which should really be called “Telecom Companies for Prosperity.”

Glenn Beck believes there is a conspiracy by Obama Administration officials, working with “Marxists and Maoists,” to secretly gain control of the Internet through the implementation of Net Neutrality, and to prove it, he brings on a guy whose paycheck depends on the corporate contributions from big telecommunications companies that want him to pretend he represents actual consumers.  The real conspiracy was sitting just six feet away from Glenn, but he missed it because he was too busy rearranging pictures of Mao Tse-Tung and others on his magnetized chalkboard.

Drawing chalk lines and stacking and re-stacking pictures like some sort of deranged episode of The Hollywood Squares doesn’t actually prove a conspiracy, but I’ll take Mao Tse-Tung in the center square to block!

In a remarkably fact free ten minutes, Glenn’s photo album of the guilty got star billing, as he labeled those who personally crossed swords with Beck or Fox News as “Marxists.”  Van Jones, who founded Color of Change, the organization that coordinated an effort to strip Beck of virtually all of his mainstream paid advertisers after Beck accused President Obama of being racist against white America is there.  Rahm Emanuel and Anita Dunn, both of whom referred to Fox News as an arm of the Republican Party are there (Emanuel “is just evil, not a Marxist” according to Beck, while Dunn is a “Maoist.”)  Robert McChesney, who co-founded Free Press, one of many public interest groups fighting for Net Neutrality is there as well.  He’s the ‘real string puller and master conspirator’ here, according to Beck and Kerpen.

At times, this theater of the absurd left Kerpen with an odd look on his face, reduced to simply looking up at Beck, who spent large amounts of two segments on the all-important issue of moving and labeling pictures of his personal enemies around like a 14 year old throwing a temper tantrum.  It’s hard to argue Americans for Prosperity represents the sane position on Net Neutrality after Kerpen’s ten minute Beck Affirmation Session.

[flv width=”640″ height=”480″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Glenn Beck Ravings of Net Neutrality Part One 10-20-09.flv[/flv]

Part one of Glenn Beck’s rant on Net Neutrality with Americans for Prosperity’s Phil Kerpen on October 20th (6 Minutes)

When dealing with people not entirely there, sometimes it is safer to just humor them while you seek a graceful exit.  But Kerpen played along with Beck’s label gun, and as we’ve seen all year, co-opted the paranoia among some conservatives that Net Neutrality, the Fairness Doctrine, and President Barack Obama are all conspiring to silence Glenn, right wing talk radio, and sooner or later all dissent.

Beck opens the discussion by fundamentally misunderstanding the very definition of Net Neutrality.

“Net neutrality. This is that everybody should have free Internet, right?,” Beck asks Kerpen.

“Well, essentially. You know, they dress it up the way they dress up a lot of their things. They turn it upside-down by saying that evil corporations, phone and cable corporations are going to block what we can do block or we can say,” Kerpen responds.

In fact, Net Neutrality has nothing to do with giving away free access to the Internet.  It is about preserving the free exchange of ideas that would allow Glenn, and anyone else, to talk about whatever they want online without fear a broadband provider would interfere with their content, slow access to it, block it, or charge extra to make sure it gets through to people at reasonable speeds.

Beck tried to conflate Net Neutrality with a government plan to give away access to everyone at taxpayer expense.

“I don’t remember anybody saying in the 1930s that everybody had a right to radio and we gave away free radios for the government. And I don’t remember anybody in the ’50s everybody deserved a free television, but that’s where we’re headed now. So that neutrality – I want to get to that later on in the week,” Beck said.

Perhaps Beck will educate himself on Net Neutrality by that time.

Kerpen knows better, but he’s paid to distort the issue.  Stop the Cap! consumers encountered Americans for Prosperity in North Carolina this past summer who were duped to show up to support state measures restricting municipal broadband projects in the state.  They thought they were there to support a-la-carte cable programming options and to oppose Obama Administration “emergency powers” to control the Internet.  Upon learning the true nature of the legislation at hand, a number of them ended up on our side.  They hate big telephone and cable monopolies too.

Americans for Prosperity is largely funded by corporate interests, which makes it unsurprising they would echo their talking points.

Kerpen’s fear factory that Net Neutrality represents a way for government to demand balance on websites is laughable, but then we know better.  For a crowd that already believes in the basic construct of Glenn Beck’s world view, it’s entirely believable.  That’s a shame, because it is Net Neutrality that ultimately will protect their access to Glenn’s online content without blockades or extortionist pricing from broadband providers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”480″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Glenn Beck Ravings of Net Neutrality Part Two 10-20-09.flv[/flv]

Part two of Glenn Beck’s rant on Net Neutrality with Americans for Prosperity’s Phil Kerpen on October 20th (5 Minutes)

AT&T’s Senior Executive Vice President of Legislative Affairs James Cicconi e-mail bombed AT&T employees Monday asking them to express their “deep concern” for Net Neutrality on the FCC’s Net Neutrality website’s comment section.  (Thanks to several Stop the Cap! readers, among them Dave, “Gaff”, “Bones”, “Prevent Caps” and James who sent news tips on this story. The delay in publication came from assembling a response you, as actual consumers, can fire back at the AT&T Propaganda Parade on the FCC website.)

More than 300,000 AT&T employees received the “suggestion” in their e-mail box, complete with ready-made talking points employees can use to parrot AT&T’s anti-Net Neutrality positions.  In a remarkably brave section, Cicconi suggests employees not use their company e-mail accounts when engaged in the “grassroots” push back, as if word of that maneuver would not promptly get leaked to the media.  (By Tuesday morning, it did.)  The FCC shouldn’t know the barrage of anti-consumer, anti-Net Neutrality comments came as a result of a PressureGram from AT&T Corporate.

“We encourage you, your family and friends to join the voices telling the FCC not to regulate the Internet,” Cicconi wrote in his letter.  “Those who seek to impose extreme regulations on the network are flooding the site to influence the FCC; it’s now time for you to voice your opinion.”

(Note: Most of those seeking to “impose extreme regulations” are actual consumers.)

The convenient “talking points” AT&T provided are identical to the comments found on any anti-consumer, telecom-sponsored astroturf group website.  That’s no surprise, considering most of those astroturf groups survive on the checks sent by those large telecommunications companies.

We debunk them for your convenience:

• America’s wireless consumers enjoy the broadest range of innovative services and devices, lowest prices, highest usage levels, and most choices in the world. Why disrupt a market that’s working so well?

That’s demonstrably false.  Consumers Union and other consumer groups independently found a high degree of concentration and obstacles to competition among providers of mobile data and Internet access services, which Net Neutrality rules would cover.  As Stop the Cap! has already reported, competition for wireless broadband is hardly a Battle Royale with virtually every carrier charging around the same amount for 5 gigabytes of maximum mobile web usage per month.  AT&T was charging a ridiculous $480 per gigabyte for those exceeding that limit, according to CU.  Americans pay an average of over $500 a year for wireless access, which hardly represents the lowest prices.  Consumers Union discovered Americans pay “much more than users in most other developed nations.”

Americans also endure restrictive phone plans that give exclusivity to popular handsets, limit certain web applications from wireless usage, and impose often stiff penalties for choosing to end a relationship with a wireless provider before the contract term has ended.

• There is fierce competition for wireless and broadband customers. Competition drives innovation and encourages companies to develop products, services and applications that consumers want. There’s been more innovation in this market than in any since the World Wide Web was introduced. The market is working for consumers. Don’t burden it with unnecessarily harmful regulations.

That’s brazenly false.  The wireless telephone industry has contracted in the last several years due to mergers and acquisitions and a determination by several independent resellers that profits were elusive reselling access to another company’s wireless network.  Alltel is now owned by Verizon Wireless.  Virgin Mobile, which took over Helio, will itself likely soon be owned by Sprint.  Amp’d Mobile, Disney Mobile and ESPN Mobile, among many other resellers, disappeared altogether.

Most rural Americans “enjoy” a monopoly broadband service provided, where available, by their local phone company providing slow speed DSL service.  Most medium sized cities are served by a duopoly — one cable and one phone company.  Innovation in broadband comes to some, such as those served by Verizon FiOS, and skipped for others, such as those suffering with Frontier, FairPoint, and other phone companies that believe standard DSL is “good enough.”  AT&T, among many other providers, now want to experiment with rationing the Internet with Internet Overcharging schemes designed to curb use of their broadband services.

• Network companies have to be able to manage their networks to ensure the most economical and efficient use of bandwidth, and provide affordable broadband services for all users. Network management is essential for consumers to enjoy the benefits of new quality-sensitive applications and services. The FCC rules should not stop the promise of life-changing, cost-saving services such as telemedicine that depend on a managed network.

That’s ludicrously false.  Managing networks, which sounds benign in theory, is often not in practice.  Several providers have recently taken a turn towards limiting access to those networks with usage rationing plans that limit consumers to a pre-determined amount of usage before overlimit fees or service termination kicks in.  AT&T is testing those schemes in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada this very day.  Stop the Cap! has repeatedly documented providers that admit their connectivity costs are dropping, right along with their investments in those networks to keep up with demand.  For some network companies, throwing hundreds of hours of online video to congest those networks seems to be an okay proposition, telemedicine or not.  Upgrade the networks that earn the American broadband industry billions in profits every year.

• The “net neutrality” rules as reported will jeopardize the very goals supported by the Obama administration that every American have access to high-speed Internet services no matter where they live or their economic circumstance. That goal can’t be met with rules that halt private investment in broadband infrastructure. And the jobs associated with that investment will be lost at a time when the country can least afford it.

That’s infamously false.  AT&T managed to eke out an existence after its merger with BellSouth when it had to live under a Net Neutral regime for two years.  As Tim Karr from Free Press notes, “AT&T is loath to mention that it made considerable network investment when it had to abide by Net Neutrality conditions, and then invested considerably less when it didn’t.”  Somehow, U-verse will survive a Net Neutral world.

Meanwhile, many other broadband providers are in no hurry to expand or build new networks unless their hands are forced by the other competitor in the market threatening to steal their customers away.  AT&T’s U-verse offering is a direct response to the cable television industry swiping their customers with “digital phone” and cable television bundles that include broadband.  Time Warner Cable earns most of its new broadband customers at the phone company’s expense when consumers tire of slow, unreliable DSL service.

For rural communities, a Net Neutral America won’t make much difference either way.  Without Net Neutrality protection, companies like Verizon continue to abandon more rural states, selling off operations to companies like FairPoint and Frontier Communications, which have uninspired broadband programs that bring slow DSL service to areas that will never be wired for Verizon fiber-optic FiOS.  Large phone companies like Verizon continue to layoff employees, especially in the traditional wireline telephone business.

If we wait for private companies to deliver broadband to every American, it will be a very long wait.  But when it does arrive, it would be nice if consumers could actually enjoy their broadband service without network throttles and Internet Overcharging schemes.

• The FCC shouldn’t burden an industry that is bringing jobs and investment to the country, but if it is going to regulate the Internet it should do so fairly. The goal of the FCC should be to maintain a level playing field by treating all competitors the same. Any new rules should apply equally to network providers, search engines and other information services providers.

That’s a laughably false premise.  When is the last time you bought broadband service from Yahoo!, Bing, or Google?  AT&T wants to compare their broadband apples with search engine oranges.  A level playing field would mean an end to the too-cute-by-half cable industry’s unofficial non-compete regime which makes sure no large cable operator intrudes on someone else’s territory.  It would mean an end to exclusive wireless handset provisions and gotcha contract terms designed to hold customers hostage to their wireless provider.  It would guarantee that if a municipality is fed up with the broadband backwater status afforded it by providers convinced what they deliver is “good enough,” that municipality can construct their own advanced broadband network and do the job private providers won’t.

Broadband regulated in the providers’ best interests have resulted in middle-of-the-pack broadband service for Americans, not the world class networks America can use to leverage a leadership role in the digital economy of the future.  The FCC should regulate the Internet to provide free, open access to innovative products and services that will really create new jobs for Americans.  They should definitely not continue a protectionism regime already in place that forces Americans to choose near-identical wireless service plans at high prices, and broadband service from one or two providers with dreams of Internet Overcharging schemes and speed throttles.

The Federal Trade Commission on Monday issued new guidelines to stem the growing trend of product and service endorsements on web-based blogs that do not disclose the cozy relationship some bloggers have with the companies they write about.  For the first time, new FTC guidelines will require bloggers to confess any payments or free products or services they receive in return for their writings.  Waiting and Watching, one of our regular readers, wrote asking if these guidelines would affect telecommunications-related sites like Stop the Cap!

The revised FTC rules add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that “material connections” (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers. The revised rules specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.

Unfortunately, in the marketplace of ideas, astroturf groups which pretend to represent consumer interests that receive direct financial support from the industry they write about do not appear to be covered by the new FTC guidelines.

Several marketing firms specializing in “word of mouth” marketing or social media campaigns are paid to put free samples in the hands of bloggers who agree to write a review of the product or service (or at least write about it generally).  In return, they get to keep the product at no charge.  Some bloggers belong to marketing programs that pay them directly for positive reviews, mentions, or links to a product or service.

The new regulations will not punish bloggers who violate the FTC guidelines — the Commission will instead go after the marketing company, the manufacturer or provider.

Some consumer groups think that is a mistake, and that bloggers should also be accountable.

Jack Gillis, a spokesman for the Consumer Federation of America, told the Associated Press he thinks the FTC doesn’t go far enough to protect consumers from unethical bloggers.

“Consumers are increasingly dependent on the Internet for purchase information,” he said. “There’s tremendous opportunity to steer consumers to the wrong direction.”

The consumer advocacy group said lack of disclosure is a big problem in blogs. To mainly crack down on companies that give out freebies or pay bloggers won’t always solve the problem. By going after bloggers as well, “you put far more pressure on them to behave properly,” Gillis said.

For the record, Stop the Cap! receives no compensation of any kind from this industry or any other.  This website is supported entirely by myself and consumer contributions made through the Paypal link on the right.  Further, none of our authors are employed by or contracted with any company or provider with an interest in our issues, including Google (for the few who have made that baseless accusation in the past.)

I believe that bloggers should be held to fully disclosing their industry and/or financial connections so consumers may be fully informed about any potential conflict of interest or bias.  Fake website reviews and promotions have been a perennial problem on the Internet, some written by consumers who earn money or free service whenever a new customer signs up using a special link he or she provided.

Some reviews on big sites like Amazon have been written by company employees under pseudonyms which praise their own products and trash the competition.  The “word of mouth” marketing industry takes this to a new level, by leveraging social media networks to hype a product, with a direct incentive for the writer to provide glowing reviews if they want to remain on the “free goodies” mailing list.  An even stronger incentive to write “pay for say” articles comes when actual cash payments are provided for reviews.  Bloggers instinctively would suspect the gravy train would derail if they turned in a series of negative honest reviews, leading to the marketing company to drop them from the program.

Having full disclosure for sites engaged in public policy debates is an even better idea, especially when members of Congress routinely quote from material provided to them by what they assume are consumer groups, but are actually little more than industry-sponsored megaphones.

[flv width=”480″ height=”360″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WWLP Springfield Bloggers Must Confess 10-5-09.flv[/flv]

WWLP-TV in Springfield reports on the new rules for bloggers.  Note the report is inaccurate about fining bloggers — FTC enforcement will not target bloggers. (1 minute)

A Fox News video report about “blogger mommies” that advocates self-regulation is also included below.

… Continue Reading

I like to think our issues are neither right nor left.  Net Neutrality preserves freedom of speech from provider interference whether you are Glenn Beck or Michael Moore.  Internet Overcharging costs conservatives as much money as it does liberals.

As various special interest groups and public relations firms continue their efforts to co-opt Net Neutrality into a partisan political issue, in hopes of muddying the waters and helping to engage consumers to help in its defeat, I occasionally take time out to talk to some of the opponents of Net Neutrality to understand their points of view, to engage them in a discussion deeper than the usual memes about “government control” or “takeovers,” and ask them to present their arguments opposing a measure that has support from groups across the political spectrum (Democrat Underground, MoveOn.org, AfterDowningStreet.org, and Common Cause on the left,  Glenn Reynolds, the Christian Coalition, and the Gun Owners of America on the right.)

Sometimes the discussions are illuminating, and I can respect their points of view even if I personally disagree.  Other times, rebutting an article published on another blog that elicits a two sentence reply from the author illustrates the fact many of these articles are more heat than light.  Often, an author fundamentally seems to misunderstand the basic tenets of Net Neutrality, replacing them with an odd assortment of conspiracy theories.  Other times, they are assured of their fact presentation right up until their points are debunked, at which point the only response they are capable of is a feigned complaint that you are “attacking them”… and then they attack you back.

Such is the case this evening in a debate with RedState blogger Neil Stevens, who has been on a rage (Google Undermines the Internet, On Julius Genachowski and Net Neutrality, and Google’s Non-Evil Pose: Hand Out Palm Facing Up) over Net Neutrality for several months, alternating between the belief the entire campaign is being orchestrated by Google and the one about it being a giant socialist conspiracy.

Tonight, the latest tirade, The Real Net Neutrality Astroturfers, attempts to neutralize efforts to call out Broadband for America, and other like-minded industry front groups, by suggesting Net Neutrality proponents have their own groups in the fight.  There is no doubt there are consumer groups out there that do not take a penny of industry money and support Net Neutrality.  There is also no doubt there are some companies involved in this fight on the pro-Net Neutrality side as well.  That’s hardly “breaking news.”

Stevens wants readers to accept a moral equivalency between industry-sponsored astroturf groups, supported by the very industry that seeks to throttle and overcharge for your broadband service, and consumer groups like ours (and several others) that do not take a penny of industry money, just because some big companies on the Internet share our position.

Stevens takes a wrong turn down Astroturf Alley, offering up a handful of BfA members that sound like they aren’t the astroturfing type as proof that BfA is not nearly as guilty as those big bad Net Neutrality supporter groups:

But despite such blatant falsehood, Save the Internet presses on to accuse its opposition of being ‘astroturf,’ that is, fake grassroots involvement. Now I would love for someone to accuse me of that, because I and anyone familiar with my financial situation would never stop laughing. Of course, they don’t mention the Open Internet Coalition backed by the above Internet titans, oh no. Only opponents like Broadband for America, a group promoting greater Internet access across America, gets that tag. I mean sure, when I think ‘corporate astroturf’, I think of BfA members like the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Child Safety Task Force, Hispanic Leadership Fund, the Livestock Marketing association, and the Jewish Energy Project. That’s just the corporate Axis of Evil right there, Save the Internet wants you to think.

Oh my.

I won’t bore our readers with my response to the rest of his theories about the true nature of Net Neutrality — you can follow the link and read them for yourself in the comments.  But this did represent an excellent opportunity to use the last week’s worth of research on individual BfA members to suggest Stevens might want to take a second look at his list, because most of them carry a fist full of broadband-provider-dollars or have telecom executives serving on their respective boards.  Another doesn’t even appear to exist.

But here is the illuminating part of my effort to engage with the Net Neutrality opposition:

I learned about BfA last week and saw the list of their 100 members. Most of them were obviously equipment manufacturers or telecommunications companies. But I wondered what in the world some of those public interest groups you mentioned, among others, were doing as members of this group. I spent last week researching ALL 100+ and the results are posted (on Stop the Cap!).

I could not find a single group that I could verify as representing actual consumers. Not one. The overwhelming majority of those public interest groups either received substantial funding from AT&T and/or Verizon, or had a company executive on their Board of Directors. I also found disturbing connections between several of the groups and Washington, DC lobbying and PR firms who have a habit of paying to use an organization’s name for a client’s agenda.

[…]

Odd how groups with Mission Statements that in no way relate to any of the broadband issues BfA will concern itself with: no regulation, no Net Neutrality, but yes to government handouts to providers to expand broadband, all seem to be members of this group, and often also magically chimed in on some other telecom issues, such as urging approval of Verizon’s merger with NorthPoint Communications or their buyout of Alltel.

[…]

Biggest advice I can give you is never simply take what you’re handed. Check it out yourself and be careful of hidden agendas and industry money, because it’s all over the place.

Stevens quickly responded, and I hoped it would provide for a spirited debate.  Not so much:

You can’t win the argument so you attack the speakers.

Get lost.

Although not so much a rebuttal as an indirect concession (when you can’t argue the facts, just feign you were ‘attacked’ and then attack back), in the spirit of harmony with conservative friends, Stevens and I continue to agree on one very important point: “We all need to look hard at just who is pushing this agenda….”

[Update: 2:20am — Moments before publishing this, I learned Stevens added a follow-up reply, before my account was banned:

Yeah, I’m not really going to let some fascist Obamanaut come here and start using this site to try to silence dissenters with the administration’s new FCC chairman.

Especially snotty bad faith posters like you.

Apparently on RedState, confronting inaccurate information and engaging in meaningful debate is a one-way ticket to banning.  That’s another indication of a weak argument at work — one that cannot withstand even the most basic scrutiny, without quickly getting rid of the person asking the questions.  On RedState, a ban is expressed by this error message when attempting to visit the site:

601 Database redigestation error.

I am not sure what ‘redigestation’ is, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.  Stevens is, of course, free to visit Stop the Cap! and share his views without fear of immediate banning just for disagreeing with me.  I’m not afraid of his arguments.]

[Update: 1:30pm — Amusingly, as of this afternoon, my original rebuttal to Stevens was modified – it’s now white text on a white background, creating a giant white empty-appearing block.  If you attempt select the text, however, it’s all still there and becomes visible.  Evidently Stevens (or someone running the site) felt his original rebuttal wasn’t terribly effective, so “additional measures” were warranted.  An additional reply this morning dismisses the whole rebuttal as inspired by George Soros, the right’s favorite bogeyman.]

Be Sure to Read Part One: Astroturf Overload — Broadband for America = One Giant Industry Front Group for an important introduction to what this super-sized industry front group is all about.

Members of Broadband for America

Red: A company or group actively engaging in anti-consumer lobbying, opposes Net Neutrality, supports Internet Overcharging, belongs to an astroturf group, or is an astroturf group itself.
Blue: An equipment supplier whose bread is buttered by the telecommunications industry, but doesn’t go out of their way to actively engage in anti-consumer activities.
Purple: A telecommunications company providing broadband service.
Black: A group or organization about which there is insufficient evidence to connect them to a specific astroturfer, lobbying firm, telecommunications provider, or other aligned special interest.  That doesn’t mean there aren’t ties yet to be uncovered.  Considering the overwhelming majority of BfA members have a vested interest towards the broadband industry, you can draw your own conclusions.

Actiontec Electronics, Inc. — Actiontec is an equipment provider selling high speed Internet modems and routers. Their customers include Verizon, Qwest, TDS, MTS and hundreds of smaller carriers throughout North America. More importantly, it is a member of the notorious anti-regulatory, anti-Net Neutrality “Hands Off the Internet” group run for and by the telecommunications industry. Actiontec is also a member of TV4Us, a group Common Cause called the very definition of Astroturf. It advocates for franchising reform (taking away local government oversight) and hates Net Neutrality. Actiontec took even more action by signing a letter by Netcompetition opposing Net Neutrality.

ADC Telecommunications, Inc. — ADC sells broadband network infrastructure products and services that enable the profitable delivery of high-speed Internet, video, data, and voice services to residential, business and mobile subscribers. Among their clients: AT&T, British Telecom, Comcast, Sprint Nextel, Qwest, T-Mobile, and Verizon. They are also listed as a member of “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition opposing Net Neutrality.

Advanced Digital Broadcast — ADB provides digital set-top boxes for including cable, IPTV, satellite and terrestrial providers.

Alloptic — Sells central office and customer premise equipment to deploy Fiber-to-the-Business and Fiber-to-the-Home.

American Agri-Women — A national coalition of farm, ranch, and agri-business organizations, AAW’s involvement in telecommunications issues is not prominent on their website. The group’s 2009 position statement has one sentence about telecommunications issues: “AAW supports a full range of ownership of telecommunications infrastructure including entrepreneurs, large corporations, municipalities, and other units of local government.”

American Association of People with Disabilities — AAPD gets major donations from both Verizon and the Verizon Foundation, and put a Verizon VP, Richard T. Ellis – on its board (2005). It participated in multiple Verizon-based campaigns, including part of a group put together by Issue Dynamics, a Washington DC public relations firm, that jointly signed an ex parte letter to the FCC, explaining why the Bell companies should not have to open their fiber-optic networks to competition. (Source: Harvard Nieman)

American Council on Renewable Energy — What do C. Boyden Gray, big industry lobbyist and ex-aide to former President George Herbert Walker Bush, and Amory Lovins, alternative energy guru, agree on? The need for a big-bucks trade association that can “bring renewable energy into the mainstream of America’s economy and lifestyle” and otherwise spread the gospel about solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass, biofuels, waste energy and hydrogen energy systems. (Source: Sourcewatch) Their position on telecommunications and broadband issues is not clear from their website.

Americans for Technology Leadership — Americans for Technology Leadership was founded by Jonathan Zuck in 1999 as a “grassroots” organization for concerned consumers who want less regulation in the technology sector.  It also campaigns on general tech issues such as spam.  It has been frequently described as a Microsoft front group.  ATL’s domain name, techleadership.org, is registered to the Association for Competitive Technology.  The site is hosted by Thomas E. Stock and Thomas J. Synhorst’s LLC, TSE Enterprises.  Synhorst is a founding member of the DCI Group, a Washington DC-based strategic consulting and lobbying firm which has counted Microsoft as a prime client for a number of years. (Source: Sourcewatch)

ARRIS — ARRIS provides broadband technology for the cable industry. ARRIS products help cable operators provide cable TV and telephony, high-speed Internet and data access. The ARRIS product line includes cable modem and wireless broadband products, infrastructure for digital video and IPTV, and a Fixed Mobile solution.

AT&T — Broadband provider

BendBroadband — Broadband provider

BeSafe — BeSafe Technologies uses broadband to provide real time information to emergency first responders, including contact information, aerial photos, video feeds and building plans. It’s interested in advocating emergency preparedness issues that leverage broadband infrastructure as part of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan.

BigBand Networks, Inc. — BigBand Networks provides infrastructure and support for moving, managing, and monetizing video.

BTECH Inc. — A backup battery provider which oddly finds the need to involve itself in a variety of astroturf groups.  In addition to signing a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality, BTECH also belongs to “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us.

Cablevision Systems Corporation — Broadband provider

CBM of America, Inc. — A network solutions provider for IP networks, CBM is also a member of astroturf group “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

CenturyLink — Broadband provider

Charles Industries, Ltd. — Provides cable wiring protection and products that help expand DSL service to hard to reach areas. What wasn’t hard to find was their membership in the astroturf group TV4Us.  They also signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Child Safety Task Force — Part of the Robert K. Johnson astroturf machine, including Consumers for Cable Competitive Choice and Consumers Voice. Only involvement in telecommunications comes from “child safety on the Internet” issue.

Cisco — An equipment manufacturer that has ties to several astroturf and public policy groups, including Arts+Labs and is a major advocate of the alarmist “The Internet is full/exaflood/zettabyte era” rhetoric providers use to justify Internet Overcharging schemes, while Cisco’s self-interest is served by selling the equipment to manage the ‘data tsunami.’  They also signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

CoAdna Photonics, Inc. — Sells a variety of products to maintain optical networks, and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Comcast — Broadband provider

CommScope, Inc. — Designs and produces cables for cable broadband and other providers.

Condux International, Inc. — Condux is a manufacturer of aerial and underground cable installation equipment and tools. Also belongs to TV4Us and “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Consumers First — A group that receives corporate contributions from both AT&T and Verizon, Consumers First often turns up belonging to other astroturf groups, including Robert K. Johnson’s now-defunct Consumers for Cable Choice.

Corning Incorporated — A manufacturer of fiber optic cable, among other things. Verizon is a very important customer.  Corning helped launch the Fiber to the Home Council, which pals around with astroturfers and doesn’t like Net Neutrality. Corning keeps more distance between itself and direct anti-consumer astroturf campaigns, but still signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Cox Communications — Broadband provider

CTIA The Wireless Association — The trade association for the wireless industry, includes AT&T and Verizon.

DC-Primary Care Association — A group advocating for health care reform, telemedicine, and affordable care in the District of Columbia. Its primary interest in broadband may be to leverage stimulus money for health-care related broadband applications.

Dominican American National Roundtable — A group that claims to represent the interests of Dominican-Americans, they spend a lot of time involving themselves in telecommunications issues like mergers involving Verizon. That could be because the group receives substantial support from both AT&T and Verizon Wireless. On behalf of Verizon in 2008, DANA wrote the Federal Communications Commission with a dubious argument in favor of the Verizon Wireless-Alltel merger, claiming “Verizon Wireless also has the scale and scope to invest in network facilities in […] areas in which there is a dense Dominican population.” They fell all over themselves praising Verizon: “Verizon Wireless is well known for having one of the largest and most reliable national wireless networks in the country, so Alltel’s customers will benefit from its size, reach and quality [and] customers will benefit from ever-greater choices – in plans and phones – [and] one of the most advanced broadband networks.”

Enhanced Telecommunications Inc. — Enhanced Telecommunications, Inc. was founded in 1992 to provide software for the converging broadband technologies of television, telephone and internet communications. They are also are believers in converging astroturf campaigns, as a member of “Hands Off the Internet” and a co-signer of a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Fiber to the Home Council — An industry trade group that promotes fiber optics broadband. The FTTH Council was established in July 2001 by Alcatel-Lucent, Corning Incorporated and Optical Solutions. If an issue could lead to more fiber optics deployment, FTTH Council is often involved. Since consumers are often pro-fiber, there are times they do share a common interest in expanding fiber optic broadband. But the Council hates Net Neutrality. Full Frontal Scrutiny also exposed some credibility problems with the Council: “The FTTH Council is comprised of “approximately 800 company member delegates,” most of which represent businesses that provide equipment and/or services related to fiber optic systems. Nonprofit institutions can apply to join the FTTH Council, but their membership must be approved by the Board of Directors. Moreover, nonprofits allowed to join the FTTH Council can not serve on the Board or vote on Council issues.” The group also promotes the “exaflood – Internet is going to get overloaded” scare-mongering, unsurprising since they believe fiber deployment will fix it.

FiberControl — Designs and manufactures fiber based polarization stabilizers, polarization controllers and polarization-state scramblers for fiber optic networks. They will polarize our readers against them as a member of the “Hands Off the Internet” astroturf group and their signature on a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Global Crossing — A telecommunications service provider.  As a consumer who lived under Global Crossing’s ownership of Frontier Communications, I hope BfA made sure the check cleared before sending them membership stickers.

Hispanic Leadership Fund — A conservative Hispanic political group that generally opposes regulation and government involvement in private business. Mario Lopez, group president, spent most of his summer at tea party rallies criticizing Obama Administration policies. Insufficient information available to know where the money comes from, but this group opposes regulation generally, so Net Neutrality is definitely a thumbs-down with them.

Independent Technologies Inc. — Independent Technologies is a communications technology research and development company. They also independently decided to join forces with both “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us astroturfers and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance (ITTA) — An industry trade group of independent mid-size telephone companies. Their members, which usually provide DSL broadband service, include CenturyLink, Comporium Communications, Consolidated Communications, FairPoint Communications, Frontier Communications, Iowa Telecom, Qwest Communications, TDS Telecom, and Windstream Communications. The group actively opposes Net Neutrality and wants a hands-off policy on telecommunications regulations.

International Association for K-12 Online — iNACOL, The International Association for K-12 Online Learning, is a non-profit organization that facilitates collaboration, advocacy, and research to enhance quality K-12 online teaching and learning.

Intertribal Agriculture Council — IAC was founded in 1987 to pursue and promote the conservation, development and use of Native American agricultural resources for the betterment of Native Americans. Oddly, one of the priorities for IAC in 2008 was being a full-throated supporter of the Sirius-XM Radio merger. It also joined forces with the Alliance for Aviation Across America (along with other BfA members including the National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry and the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association) to oppose a proposal to shift some of airline carriers’ federal tax burden to small-jet operators.

Itaas Inc. — Founded in 1999, itaas is a privately held, Atlanta-based company with experience in digital cable television technology.

 

Jewish Energy Project — Appears to be defunct or inoperative. Website jewishenergyproject.org launches a prompt to log onto group founder Brian H. Davis’ Gmail account! Davis is an environmental lawyer whose firm uses a “team approach [to] support “harmonizing of business and environment.”

Latinos in Information Science & Technology Association — LISTA claims it is a national organization of Latino professionals and role models from the information science, telecommunications, and technology industry. “By working together and showcasing the talented Latinos in these sectors, the community as a whole could reach higher goals in order to conquer the digital divide. Today, LISTA remains committed to excellence and providing a wide spectrum of resources to members, corporate sponsors, businesses, educational institutions and the community.” Somehow, it accomplishes that by advocating the merger of Sirius and XM Radio and attacking Google’s “search monopoly.” LISTA has a corporate sponsorship program that, among other things, “link LISTA strategic initiatives to the objectives of the corporation.” Now we’re getting somewhere. LISTA’s membership in BfA may strategically link the objectives of these sponsors: AT&T, National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Microsoft, Comcast, Verizon, and RCN Communications.

Livestock Marketing Association — The Livestock Marketing Association is committed to the support and protection of the local livestock auction markets.  Their website says, “auctions are a vital part of the livestock industry, serving producers and assuring a fair, competitive price through the auction method of selling.” The best way to assure that is to join Broadband for America?  Perhaps the livestock have Facebook pages.

LookBothWays – From their website: “LOOKBOTHWAYS, Inc., founded by internationally recognized online safety expert Linda Criddle, provides free consumer education in online safety through their Web site, ilookbothways.com. We are currently building K-12 online safety curriculum which will be available to everybody at no charge, and teach a college course in Internet Safety for Educators through two US universities. LOOKBOTHWAYS also has a software division developing technology solutions for online safety. In addition we consult and train companies, governments, and law enforcement agencies worldwide and are available for speaking engagements on a wide variety of safety topics. Criddle spent 13 years at Microsoft where she was a pioneer in online safety.”   Criddle also heads the “Safe Internet Alliance” which is absolutely infested with astroturf groups and providers, many of them also AfB members: AT&T, US Internet Industry Association, National Black Chamber of Commerce, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, RetireSafe, Stop Child Predators, Verizon, MANA (A National Latina Organization), and Consumers First. Her organization’s name is lent out to Saferdates, which charges a fee to do background and fingerprint checks on you to “verify” your identity to people who might want to date you.  Perhaps Criddle should perform a background check on BfA to know who she’s hanging around with.

MANA (A National Latina Organization) — Formerly the Mexican American National Association, MANA today claims to empower Latina women through leadership development, community service, and advocacy. They are also empowered by support from AT&T and Verizon. MANA’s National Corporate Partnership Council will put your company logo on their home page for a $50,000 contribution (AT&T is the first logo shown). MANA’s Advisory Council has Emilio Gonzalez, Verizon’s director of public policy and strategic alliances on it. Gonzalez also serves on the boards of two other BfA members:  the United States Distance Learning Association and the US Mexico Chamber of Commerce.  Even more impressive, from as astroturfing perspective, is their Vice-Chair, Bridget Gonzales, who used to be “Assistant Vice President for Issue Dynamics, Inc., a public affairs firm in Washington, DC, where she led the firm’s Strategic Alliances Group. “Ms. Gonzales was instrumental in planning and executing public affairs and consumer education campaigns for Fortune 500 clients such as Verizon Communications, BellSouth, SBC Communications, Corning, Novartis, and others. This included preparation of press releases, op-eds, speeches and consumer education materials as well as coordination of issue briefings, congressional advocacy activities, workshops and media relations. Critical to her success was the effective working relationships she established with high profile national organizations such as League of United Latin American Citizens, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, NAACP, National Grange, Gray Panthers and others.”

Motorola — An equipment manufacturer, among its biggest customers are AT&T, T Mobile, and Verizon.  They signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

MRV Communications, Inc. — MRV Communications is a supplier of communications equipment and services to service providers. “Today’s telecommunication networks are evolving to support growing network traffic due to the demand for high-bandwidth applications such as IPTV, streaming video, peer-to-peer networking, and content-rich websites. Service providers are attempting to differentiate their offerings from their competitors and strive to provide many new capabilities. The growth in these applications is driving the need for additional bandwidth capacity in the Internet infrastructure.” They don’t differentiate themselves much in their membership in the usual astroturf groups “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us. They also co-signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

National Association of Manufacturers — This trade association, which counts AT&T and Verizon among its members has this policy towards telecommunications: “Fostering an environment where manufacturers and consumers alike can obtain the services and content they want, when they want it and regardless of medium, is of primary concern. To achieve this goal, policymakers should remove barriers to entry that prevent broadband providers from offering high-speed information services to homes and businesses, balance the need for regulations against the potential to dampen private industry’s incentive to invest in broadband technology, encourage federal and state regulators to monitor the rollout of broadband services, and adopt a federal framework and to the extent necessary, lightly regulate only to ensure fair, technology-neutral competition for all providers.” They are members of both “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us.

National Association of Black Telecommunications Professionals — Appears defunct. The last time the nabtp.org website was updated and captured by Archive.org was on May 13, 2008. Their telephone number has been disconnected. Among their last features was a promotion for a speech by Larry Irving, who himself works for an astroturf group – the Internet Innovation Alliance. Some history on this group and others like it, was written by the National Community NETwork of AT&T.

National Black Chamber of Commerce — This group’s stated purpose: “To economically empower and sustain African American communities through entrepreneurship and capitalistic activity within the United States and via interaction with the Black Diaspora.” Their website hides their membership list, stating: “The National Black Chamber of Commerce does not distribute information about our members to protect their privacy.” Uh huh. We can take a wild guess however, based on their extended reach into the astroturf diaspora with memberships in both “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us. Back in December 2007 before the corporate sponsors were removed from the website for ‘their privacy,’ the group noted it had AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon among its members. Here they were towing the telecom industry line in a press release back in May 2007.

National Cable & Telecommunications Association — Everyone’s favorite super-sized trade association and lobbyist for big cable.

National Caucus and Center on Black Aged — “Throughout its 39 years history, the National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc. (NCBA) has worked to eliminate obstacles to fairness and equal access for one of the most underserved and vulnerable groups in our society – low-income black and minority senior citizens. NCBA’s programs have focused on three of the most critical needs: housing, employment and health promotion/disease prevention.” Actually, four needs — the fourth suddenly being broadband. This group has several telecommunications industry connections, as explored in part one of this report.

National Disease Cluster Alliance — A real mystery why this group belongs to BfA. This group is dedicated to identifying and responding to emerging disease cluster/anomalies. Founding member Floyd Sands passed away in May after a lengthy battle with cancer. In August, the group advertised for a new executive director and is engaged in fundraising. The stated purpose of the organization is noble, but their sudden interest in broadband issues as part of an astroturf effort is concerning.

National Grange — “The National Grange is the nation’s oldest national agricultural organization, with grassroots units established in 3,600 local communities in 37 states. Its 300,000 members provide service to agriculture and rural areas on a wide variety of issues, including economic development, education, family endeavors, and legislation designed to assure a strong and viable Rural America.” The organization claims to be particularly interested in rural telecommunications issues.  Coincidentally, it often finds itself getting involved in telecommunications issues that directly impact or involve Verizon. That’s ironic, considering Verizon is abandoning many rural communities altogether and selling them off to Frontier Communications. Over the years, the National Grange has thrown its view in on to Verizon vs. the RIAA, a request for Congress to support industry friendly legislation, a merger between Verizon and NorthPoint Communications, and universal service fund issues that brought them into a coalition with … the corn growers LawMedia Group loves to work with: The Keep USF Fair Coalition was formed in April 2004. Current members include Alliance for Public Technology, Alliance For Retired Americans, American Association Of People With Disabilities, American Corn Growers Association, American Council of the Blind, California Alliance of Retired Americans, Consumer Action, Deafness Research Foundation, Gray Panthers, Latino Issues Forum, League Of United Latin American Citizens, Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition, National Association Of The Deaf, National Consumers League, National Grange, National Hispanic Council on Aging, National Native American Chamber of Commerce, The Seniors Coalition, Utility Consumer Action Network, Virginia Citizen’s Consumer Council and World Institute On Disability. DSL Prime helps define the friendly circle.

National Puerto Rican Coalition, Inc. — NPRC’s mission is to systematically strengthen and enhance the social, political, and economic well-being of Puerto Ricans throughout the United States and in Puerto Rico with a special focus on the most vulnerable. AT&T is a major sponsor of the group. The organization signed a letter in 2006 concerning itself with, of all things, cable television set-top box integration. It took the vulnerable industry position. It supported the Sprint Nextel merger in 2005 with another letter.

NDS Limited — NDS Group Ltd is a private company owned by the Permira Funds and News Corporation. It creates technologies that allow pay-TV operators to generate revenues by securely delivering digital content to TVs, set-top boxes (STBs), digital video recorders (DVRs), PCs, portable media players (PMPs), removable media, and other mobile devices.

Net Literacy — This company’s mission “is to increase computer access by creating public computer labs, teach computer and Internet skills, and educate youth and parents about Internet safety.” “Senior Coalition Partners” include Verizon, Bright House Networks, Comcast, and the US Internet Industry Association.  Net Literacy co-released a report with the USIIA advocating AT&T and other provider views about broadband adoption, including government investment in broadband, and potentially supporting industry-sponsored Internet education and child safety efforts.

NSG America, Inc. — “As creator of the SELFOC Lens, Nippon Sheet Glass (NSG) manufactures and distributes more gradient-index lenses than anyone else in the world. Developed over 25 years ago, the SELFOC Lens has revolutionized the industries of fiber optic communications.” They signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality, and are also members of “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us.

Occam Networks, Inc — Occam Networks develops and markets the BLC 6000 multi-service access platform (MSAP), an Ethernet and IP-based loop carrier platform that enables our customers to profitably deliver a variety of traditional and packet voice, broadband and IP services from a single, converged all-packet access network.

OFS Fitel, LLC — OFS manufactures and markets fusion splicers, optical fiber, optical cable, fiber to the home (FTTX), connectivity, optical components, and specialty photonics products and optical components. They are also members of “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

On Trac, Incorporated — On Trac, Inc. is a telecommunications subcontractor that specializes in fiber to the home installations. Municipalities sometimes contract with them to do installations. On Trac is a member of “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

PECO II, Inc. — PECO II designs and manufactures DC power systems and provides engineering and support assistance. They also support and assist “Hands Off the Internet” as a member and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

People & Technology — Insufficient information to identify which group or company this represents.

Preformed Line Products, Inc. — Preformed Line Products (PLP) is a worldwide designer, manufacturer and supplier of cable anchoring and control hardware and systems, fiber optic and copper splice closures, and high-speed cross-connect devices.  They signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Prysmian Communications Cables and Systems USA, LLC — A player in the industry of high-technology cables and systems for energy and telecommunications. They are members of both “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us and also signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Quanta Services, Inc — Quanta Services is a provider of specialized contracting services, delivering end-to-end network solutions for the electric power, telecommunications, broadband cable and gas pipeline industries.  They signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Qwest — Broadband provider

RetireSafe — “RetireSafe is a grassroots advocacy and educational organization dedicated to preserving the options and protecting the benefits of America’s seniors. RetireSafe believes in a government that keeps its promises, protects our nation, and maintains the safety of its citizens. We believe in free markets, lower taxes, limited regulations, and the virtues of personal freedom and personal responsibility that provides true retirement security for all.” The American Prospect called the group “strange” because it doesn’t identify up front who runs it or pays the bills: “Many of these other groups exist as little more than letterheads and Web sites.”  There are suspicions RetireSafe is run by DCI Group, a Washington DC lobbying firm, on behalf of one of its corporate clients. Oddly, RetireSafe has usually been the domain of big pharmaceutical companies. What they are doing on Americans for Broadband’s member list is a mystery. DCI’s other clients have included AT&T and Microsoft, although there is no certain evidence who is behind the new interest in broadband.

Seachange International — SeaChange International is a provider of software applications, services and integrated solutions for the management and monetization of Video on Demand (VOD), digital advertising, and content acquisition.

Sheyenne Dakota, Inc. — Custom Cable Harness Manufacturing. They also signed a letter by Netcompetition opposing Net Neutrality.

Silver Star Communications — Broadband provider

Sjoberg’s, Inc — Broadband provider

Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council — The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) works to educate elected officials, policy makers, business leaders and the public to advance initiatives that enhance the environment for entrepreneurship, business start-up and growth. Member of TV4Us, which TV Technology described: “The roster of Coalition members includes The National Taxpayers Union, the Latino Coalition, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, the Women’s Presidents Organization, the Construction Industry Foundation, the Citizenship Foundation–and, oh yes, a dozen telecom manufacturers, the National Association of Manufacturers and AT&T. You can probably guess correctly whose money actually paid for the coalition’s ads.”

SNC Manufacturing Company, Inc. — SNC is a manufacturer and worldwide marketer of transformers, coils, high frequency magnetics and value-added assemblies.  They are a TV4Us member, and although their logo has changed, it appears they also signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Stop Child Predators — If your cat was a member of the Democratic Party, it would hiss the moment the people behind this group entered the room. Cary Katz, Chairman and President – Founder/CEO College Loan Corporation is a major Republican donor. Board member Viet Dinh was on the Board of Directors of Murdoch’s News Corporation, although he’s better known for his key role in producing the USA Patriot Act. One blogger investigating the group complained: “The Stop Child Predators Partnership doesn’t actually seem to do anything.” The group’s focus seems to be on developing stronger legislation for child predator crime prosecutions and sentencing, with suggested legislation for online safety as well. Insufficient information to tell if there is any telecommunications industry money in the group.

Sumitomo Electric Lightwave — A manufacturer of optical fiber and optical cable, cable assemblies, fiber management systems, etc. Member of “Hands Off the Internet,” they also signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Sunrise Telecom Inc — Sunrise develops test and measurement solutions for telecom, cable, and wireless networks that ensure network performance, speed deployment, and reduce the cost of network operations. Sunrise is a member of “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

SureWest Communications — Broadband provider

Suttle Apparatus Corporation — Suttle is a manufacturer of communication connectivity products to major service providers and installers.  Suttle was not subtle about their willingness to advocate against consumer interests when they signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Telecommunications Industry Association — “The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) is the leading trade association representing the global information and communications technology (ICT) industries through standards development, government affairs, business opportunities, market intelligence, certification and world-wide environmental regulatory compliance. With support from its 600 members, TIA enhances the business environment for companies involved in telecommunications, broadband, mobile wireless, information technology, networks, cable, satellite, unified communications, emergency communications and the greening of technology.” TIA members are extensive within the broadband industry. Filed comments with the FCC objecting to Net Neutrality in 2008.

Telework Coalition — The Telework Coalition brings together a diverse array of organizations, companies, and individuals with the common interest of promoting awareness and adoption of existing and emerging Telework and Telecommuting applications including telemedicine and distance learning, as well as addressing access to broadband services that may be needed to support these applications.

The Latino Coalition — TLC’s agenda is to develop initiatives and partnerships that will foster economic equivalency and enhance overall business, economic and social development of Latinos. The bottom of the website indicates “TLC Website presented by AT&T.” Both AT&T and Verizon are corporate partners of The Latino Coalition, which also belongs to astroturf group TV4Us. The Latino Coalition likes to involve itself in a lot of cable and broadcasting industry business. More details on this group can be found in part one.

Time Warner Cable — Broadband provider

United States Distance Learning Association — Serves the distance learning community by providing advocacy, information, networking and opportunity. Board member Raymond E. Hartfield works for AT&T. Emilio X. Gonzalez, director of public policy and strategic alliances at Verizon sits on their Advisory Board. He also sits on the board of MANA and the US Mexico Chamber of Commerce, both BfA members. Verizon is a 21st Century Benefactor of USDLA, which could explain why USDLA went out of its way to submit positive comments about the merger proposal between Verizon and NorthPoint Communications. More recently, in June, USDLA submitted comments to the FCC calling for a deregulatory approach to a national broadband plan, and went out of its way to oppose Net Neutrality.

United States Telecom Association — The trade association of broadband service providers, the organization doesn’t hide its opposition to Internet-related regulation. “Today’s calls for greater government intervention are to “fix” a problem that simply does not exist as far as today’s consumer of broadband services is concerned. This unnecessary intervention would slow broadband deployment and the arrival of a wide variety of pro-consumer advances.” They have a history of running astroturf campaigns, such as ‘The Future… Faster‘ which claimed to be a “coalition” that represents both “industry leaders” and “individual Americans.” If they put they period after ‘leaders,’ they would have been correct. Consumers were nowhere to be found. USTA has a history with Issue Dynamics, a DC lobbying firm and astroturf campaign creator.

US Cable Corporation — Broadband provider

US Cattlemen’s Association — The United States Cattlemen’s Association is a membership organization working for the grassroots cattle producer. Another major oddity in the BfA membership, the USCA’s focus on cattle seems to be completely non germane to broadband issues. Jon Wooster, president, wrote a letter to the FCC urging them to approve the merger between Verizon and Alltel: “We believe the merger between Verizon Wireless and Alltel will boost competition in the cell phone industry while bringing broadband and its innovations to all Americans – whether they live in downtown or on the farm. As an established wireless carrier, Verizon Wireless has the breadth and depth to make the significant investment in rural infrastructure that is so desperately needed. It has already poured billions into a new portion of the wireless spectrum just to deliver new high-speed (broadband) service to more Americans.” The group also signed their name to a Connected Nation letter to Congress saying, in part: “We believe Congress should adopt legislation this year that provides federal government support for state initiatives using public-private partnerships to identify gaps in broadband coverage and to develop both the supply of and demand for broadband in those areas.” The letter was also signed by AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and a whole host of astroturf groups and industry-affiliated organizations.

US Chamber of Commerce — Their slogan is “fighting for your business.” The nation’s largest industry trade association, they are always, by definition on business’ side.

US Internet Industry Association — The US Internet Industry Association (USIIA) is the North American trade association for Internet commerce, content and connectivity. Most USIIA members are broadband service providers. Works with Issue Dynamics, a Washington, DC public relations firm that engages in astroturf campaigns.

US Mexico Chamber of Commerce — The organization’s mission is to promote business between the United States and Mexico. How that relates to Americans for Broadband is an open question, although Emilio Gonzalez, Director of Public Policy & Strategic Alliances at Verizon who serves on the Board of Directors of this group might provide a possible answer. Gonzalez also serves on the boards of two other BfA members: MANA and the United States Distance Learning Association. Verizon’s logo also appears on the group’s home page. They are one of four listed sponsors.

Verizon — Broadband provider

Vermeer Manufacturing Company — Farm machinery and trenchless and trenching equipment from a construction equipment manufacturer. Also harvested was the fact Vermeer belongs to “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition opposing Net Neutrality.

Windstream Corporation — Broadband provider