GCI, an Alaskan Internet Service Provider, is getting pummeled by angry customers as they continue to learn the company has launched an Internet Overcharging scheme that limits their broadband use.  Some customer claim the company is actively trying to trick those previously enrolled in unlimited plans into limited service tiers with tantalizing “free speed upgrades.”

Stop the Cap! reader Thomas was one of more than a dozen readers who complained to the Anchorage Daily News about the broadband ripoff.

He is outraged by the bait and switch tactics employed by GCI that sold customers on expensive bundled service packages that promised “unlimited Internet” service the company is now trying to take away.

Thomas first learned GCI had slapped limits on his broadband account… from Stop the Cap! GCI never bothered to inform him, or many other customers, about the new usage limits.  After he read our earlier story, he called GCI and learned he was a victim of Internet Overcharging.

GCI’s limits range from 40-100GB on plans ranging in price from $45-105 per month.

GCI, like most Internet Overchargers, tries to blame its customers for the imposed limits.

GCI estimates that 5 percent of its Internet customers are consuming 70 percent of the company’s available bandwidth. These users share a portion of their Internet cable with other GCI customers, and they have been slowing down the other households’ Internet speed, GCI spokesman David Morris told the Anchorage newspaper.

In an effort to prove their contention that usage limits improve service, GCI handed out free speed upgrades along with usage allowances and attempted to conflate the two.

In reality, most broadband slowdowns come from overselling access and being unwilling to invest in appropriate capacity upgrades to meet the growing needs of customers.  For companies like GCI, imposing usage limits to scare users away from high bandwidth services is cheaper and more profitable than meeting customer demand.

“Most of the under-30 crowd that I know use Netflix and Hulu streaming services so we can watch what we want, when we want. Cable TV does not give us the flexibility we want,” Sean Hogan, an Anchorage accountant, told the newspaper.

“I’m getting charged $180 per month and I don’t even want the phone or cable,” said Mike White, an Anchorage customer who upgraded his data-usage plan recently because he was worried about violating GCI’s limits.

GCI claims its new limits allow customers to do many things they had no interest in doing under their old unlimited plans, like sending millions of e-mail messages or browsing tens of thousands of web pages.  To make the limits sound generous, they made a chart:

Usage Comparison

	Example	5,000 MB	20,000 MB	40,000 MB	100,000 MB
Email (4 KB)	Text Only	1.25 Million	5 Million	10 Million	25 Million
Email with Picture (1 MB)	Average quality photo	5,000	20,000	40,000	100,000
Webpages (100 KB)	Facebook, eBay	50,000 pages	200,000 pages	400,000 pages	1 Million pages
Music Downloads (4 MB)	3 minute song	1,250 songs	5,000 songs	10,000 songs	25,000 songs
Streaming Audio (1 MB/min)	Pandora Internet Radio	80 hours	320 hours	640 hours	1,600 hours
Streaming Video (2 MB/min)	YouTube	40 hours	160 hours	320 hours	800 hours
Movie Downloads	Standard Definition	7.5 movies	30 movies	60 movies	148 movies

Of course, these limits ignore the reality customers do most or all of these things, and if they use their high speed connection to download files or watch the increasing amount of video content delivered in High Definition, they’ll blow through some of GCI’s limits with little effort.

Despite GCI’s claims of generosity, its customers think otherwise, and many are moving to curb their usage to avoid potential penalty fees or service termination the company could impose with enforcement of their caps:

Morris said that most of GCI’s customers will discover that their Internet usage is far below the new limits. Depending on the plan, the limits range between 50 and 125 gigabytes per month.

Chris Bruns, an Anchorage father and college student, isn’t so sure. “I’m in the high-30 (gigabyte) range every month,” he said.

GCI’s cheapest substitute for an unlimited plan is 40 gigabytes — the equivalent of downloading and watching 60 movies per month on your computer.

Bruns found out recently — after calling GCI to ask some questions about his family’s Internet speed and usage — that his previously unlimited plan, called Ultimate Xtreme, now had a 40 gigabyte ceiling.

“I was pretty miffed. It came as a surprise,” he said.

“When we signed up, we specifically got the unlimited plan because we knew we used it a lot,” he said.

He said he has since curbed the family’s Internet usage to be on the safe side. He said he and his wife regularly download movies for themselves and cartoons for their two children on Netflix to watch on their computer. Using Netflix is a way to keep the kids from seeing “garbage” on TV, Bruns said.

Ed Sniffen, a consumer-protection attorney in the Alaska Department of Law, may a victim of GCI’s bait and switch broadband himself.

Sniffen said he has had an unlimited-data plan with GCI and didn’t know on Tuesday afternoon whether he received a notice about the new policy. He said anyone who has a concern should contact the Law Department’s consumer-protection office.

The story in the newspaper prompted an enormous response — some 265 comments and counting.  A sampler:

GCI provides terrible service compared to companies in the lower 48 at exorbitant prices. They are a monopoly that needs to be tweaked.

GCI’s Network costs are FIXED. They are raping and pillaging us.

“GCI said it hasn’t yet charged anyone fees for exceeding the data limits…” — GCI lies. Just a few months ago I was charged nearly $100 for exceeding the bandwidth limit. Since then, I’ve upgraded my package to a ridiculous amount of bandwidth (at a ridiculous price) just so I can avoid that problem.

This is crazy. You go anywhere in the lower 48 and almost every Internet provider out there has some sort of unlimited plan, and it doesn’t involve payment with an arm, a leg, a kidney, or a first-born child. GCI needs to get this crap sorted out.

I got an offer to double my Internet speed and usage for a few bucks extra, and free cable (the good package, not the basic cable). Two months later, I still haven’t seen anyone show up to do anything, and I’m still getting charged out the tail end for overage charges. I keep requesting to up my Internet (I have a college student who takes some Internet classes) but they never do it. The only reasons I switched from ACS were because when it rained we had no phone OR internet (they said the problem was with our lines – our landlord at the time needed to fix it, but the contractor said it was ACS’s line problem – THEY needed to fix it.)  If there was another alternative to phone/Internet, I would so be there.

I was out and out LIED to by a GCI Rep. I was told if I changed my plan I would receive higher speeds with NO OTHER CHANGE for the same price. I questioned the GCI rep about this in detail several times before agreeing. The next day I no longer had unlimited downloads. I was LIED to and RIPPED OFF by GCI.

GCI’s statement that they have not charged overlimit charges is incorrect as over ten individuals that I know including myself have been hit with bills ranging from $300 to $2000 for one month of service.

Rhode Island politicians and some local television stations are celebrating a $21.7-million federal stimulus grant awarded to a non-profit consortium of educational, governmental and health-care organizations to construct a new fiber optic network that some claim will help “improve broadband service” for Rhode Island residents.

Unfortunately for residents of the Ocean State, the proposed network of 339 miles of fiber cable represents an example of “look, but don’t touch.”

The OSHEAN (pronounced ‘Ocean’) project is yet another example of an institutional network that is strictly off-limits to residential homeowners, unless they happen to use the service at an area school or library.

But politicians who appear at announcement ceremonies to celebrate stimulus awards, and the media that covers them, far too often sell the benefits of such projects to residents who can’t ultimately use the service their tax dollars are helping to fund.

Many parts of Rhode Island already receive access to fiber service from Verizon FiOS, which represents another reason to keep consumers out.

“Verizon would object strenuously if this stimulus grant allowed OSHEAN’s network to be available to anyone who wants access,” writes our reader Mike who lives in Providence.  “So to keep Verizon and other providers quiet, the network promises not to directly wire any residence or individual business who wants access.”

Instead, the network will predominately benefit Brown University, the City of Providence, Lifespan hospitals, the Rhode Island Division of Information Technology, the University of Rhode Island and the U.S. Naval War College.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPRI Providence Providence RI to get statewide fiber optic network 10-17-10.flv[/flv]

Here is WPRI-TV in Providence misleading viewers about the benefits of a broadband stimulus award, suggesting it will somehow improve residents’ Internet service.  (1 minute)

With continued inaction at the Federal Communications Commission, some stakeholders in the Net Neutrality debate continue to file comments with the Commission trying to find a “third way” to bring about guarantees for online free speech and access while softening opposition to “network management” technology that allows providers to manipulate broadband traffic.

Among such filers is the Communications Workers of America, which seeks a “middle-ground approach” to protecting a free and open Internet.

The CWA has always maintained its feet in two camps — with consumers looking for improved broadband and with the communications companies that employee large numbers of the union’s members, who will build out those networks and provide service.

The union shares our annoyance with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski for his complete inaction on broadband policy thus far.  In short, the Commission keeps stalling from taking direct action to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, restoring its ability to oversee broadband policy lost in a federal appeals court decision earlier this year.

The CWA used a piece by David Honig from the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC) to echo its own position:

MMTC isn’t alone in being frustrated with the FCC’s disappointing attitude toward real action this past year. In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski expressed impatience with the glacial pace of policymaking at his Commission. Although he mentioned that the FCC, under his direction, has implemented some notable reforms, he conceded that “there is still a lot to do.”

Unfortunately, regardless of how earnest the Chairman is in his desire to move forward with the business of policymaking, his actions speak much louder than his words. Indeed, his yearlong pursuit of network neutrality rules — first via a traditional rulemaking proceeding and, most recently, via an effort to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service — has cast a long and almost suffocating pall over many of the items that the Chairman wishes to act upon. His inaction on civil rights issues — especially EEO enforcement — is just one example of how paralyzed the agency has become.

Recent news that Congress will not move forward to address the regulatory questions that currently vex the Commission (e.g., whether the FCC has authority to regulate broadband service providers) could embolden the Chairman to adopt the sweeping regulatory changes for broadband that he proposed earlier this year. Doing so in the absence of Congressional action would only invite immediate legal challenges that would mire the FCC in litigation, appeals, and remands for years to come.

To put it plainly, the FCC is stuck. Although it recently adopted some promising orders related to broadband (e.g., new rules for accessing new portions of wireless spectrum called “white spaces” and for enhancing access in schools and libraries), the Commission has failed to move forward with implementing core provisions of its monumental National Broadband Plan.

The union last week also submitted its latest round of comments requested by the Commission, this time to broaden its position on a proposed compromise.  We’ve delineated which of the proposals we believe are primarily pro-consumer (in green), pro-provider (red), and which fall straight down the middle (blue):

• First, wireline broadband Internet access providers (“broadband providers”) should not block lawful content, applications, or services, or prohibit the use of non-harmful devices on the Internet.
• Second, wireline and wireless broadband providers should be transparent regarding price, performance (including reporting actual speed) and network management practices.
• Third wireline broadband providers should not engage in unjust or unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful traffic.
• Fourth, broadband providers must be able to reasonably manage their networks through appropriate and tailored mechanisms, recognizing the technical and operational characteristics of the broadband Internet access platform.
• Fifth, the Commission should take a case-by-case adjudication approach to protect an open Internet rather than promulgating detailed, prescriptive rules.

The first and third principles are strongly pro-consumer, although as we’ve seen, providers have a tendency to want to define for themselves what is “harmful,” “unjust,” or “unreasonable” and impose it on their customers.  We’ve seen provider-backed front groups argue that the concept of Net Neutrality itself is all three of these things.  Any rules must be clearly defined by the Commission, not left to open interpretation by providers.

The second principle cuts right down the middle.  Consumers deserve an honest representation of broadband speeds marketed by providers (not the usual over-optimistic speeds promised in marketing materials), and transparency in price — especially with gotchas like term contracts, early cancellation penalties, overlimit fees, etc.  But providers can also go to town with abusive network management they’ll market as advantageous and fair, even when it is neither.  Just ask customers of Clear who recently found their “unlimited” wireless broadband service, marketed as having no speed throttles, reduced in speed to barely above dial-up when they used the service “too much.”  Clear says the speed throttles are good news and represent fairness.  Customers think otherwise, and disclosure has been lacking.

The fourth and fifth principles benefit providers enormously.  Network management itself is neither benevolent or malicious.  The people who set the parameters for that management are a different story.  A traffic-agnostic engineer might use such technology to improve the quality of services like streamed video and Voice Over IP by helping to keep the packets carrying such traffic running smoothly, without noticeably reducing speeds and quality of service for other users on that network.  There is nothing wrong with these kinds of practices. There is also nothing wrong with providing on-demand speed boosts on a pay-per-use basis, so long as the network is not oversubscribed.

But since providers are spending less to upgrade their networks, providers may seek to exploit these technologies in a more malicious way — too stall needed upgrades and save money by delivering a throttled broadband experience for some or all of their customers.  If customers can be effectively punished for using high bandwidth applications, they’ll reduce their usage of them as well.  That’s good for providers but not for customers who are paying increasing broadband bills for a declining level of service.

Some examples:

• Customers using high bandwidth peer-to-peer applications can have their speeds throttled, sometimes dramatically, when using those applications;
• Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, overlimit fees, and “fair access” policies can discourage consumers from using services like online video, file transfer services, and new multimedia-rich online gaming platforms like OnLive, which can consume considerable bandwidth;
• Preferred content can be “network managed” to arrive at the fastest possible speeds, at the cost of other traffic which consequently must be reduced in speed, meaning your non-preferred traffic travels on the slow lane;
• Providers can redefine levels of broadband service based on intended use, relegating existing packages to “web browsing and e-mail” while marketing new, extra-cost add-ons for services that take the speed controls off services like file transfer and online video, or changes usage limits.

It is remarkable the CWA seeks to allow today’s indecisive Commission to individually adjudicate specific disputes, instead of simply laying down some clear principles that would not leave a host of loopholes open for providers to exploit.

Big players like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon have plenty of money at their disposal to attract and influence friends in high places.  If the Commission thought Big Telecom’s friends in Congress were breathing down its neck about telecom policy now, imagine the load it will be forced to carry when these companies seek to test the Commission’s resolve.

Opponents of Net Neutrality claim broadband reclassification will leave providers saddled with Ma Bell-era regulation.  But in truth, the FCC can make their rules plain and simple.  Here are a few of our own proposals:

1. Network management must be content-agnostic.  “Preferred partner” content must travel with the same priority as “non-preferred content;”
2. Providers can use network management to ensure best possible results for customers, but not at the expense of other users with speed throttles and other overcharging schemes;
3. Providers can market and develop new products that deliver enhanced speed services on-demand, but not if those products require a reduction in the level of service provided to other customers;
4. Customers should have the right to opt out of network management or at least participate in deciding what traffic they choose to prioritize;
5. Providers may not block or impede legal content of any kind;

In short, nobody objects to providers developing innovative new applications and services, but they must be willing to commit to necessary upgrades to broaden the pipeline on which they wish to deliver these services.  Otherwise, providers will simply make room for these enhanced revenue services at your expense, by forcing a reduction in your usage or reducing the speed and quality of service to make room for their premium offerings.

The industry itself illustrates this can be done using today’s technology.

The cable industry managed to accomplish benevolent network management with products like “Speed Boost” which delivers enhanced, short bursts of speed to broadband customers based on the current demand on the network.  Those speed enhancements depend entirely on network capacity and do not harm other users’ speeds.

Groups like the CWA need to remember that compromise only works if the terms and conditions are laid out as specifically as possible.  Otherwise, the player with the deepest pockets and closest relationships in Washington will be able to define the terms of the compromise as they see fit.

And that’s no compromise at all.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Larry Cohen on the Open Internet Jobs and the Digital Divide 9-14-10.flv[/flv]

Communications Workers of America president Larry Cohen outlined the union’s position on Net Neutrality before the Congressional Black Caucus Institute on Sept. 14, 2010.  (2 minutes)

Verizon’s lobbyists are warning western New York politicians that unless they defeat a state measure to allow Verizon ratepayers to share in the proceeds of any future landline network sell-offs, Verizon may take a multi-billion dollar proposed data center elsewhere.

The Niagara county community of Somerset, population 2,900, is the planned home for the new high-tech infrastructure project.  Verizon officials propose to use Lake Ontario breezes and water to help cool the energy-intensive facility, to be located on 160 acres just yards from the shoreline.  In all, the Verizon campus will consist of three buildings — each 300,000 square feet in size.  If built as proposed, it would be among the largest of Verizon’s 250 data centers around the world.

But there’s a hitch.

While Verizon project manager Bruce Biesecker showed drawings and answered questions from an eager audience of local residents, Verizon lobbyists were telling reporters the entire project could end up in another state because of legislation under consideration in the state legislature.

Our regular reader Smith6612 dropped us a note wondering if we knew about the project.  Yes, we did.  But we also noticed company officials spending almost as much time complaining about interference from Albany threatening to derail the data center as they spent talking about the project itself.  Company officials also rarely named the exact bill in question or how it would directly threaten its data center investment.

Stop the Cap! covered the introduction of New York Assembly Bill 2208/Senate Bill 7263 earlier this year.  Introduced by Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester) and Senator Brian X. Foley (D-Blue Point), the companion bills came in response to watching Verizon sell off large segments of its landline network in a dozen states to Frontier Communications.  Both legislators were concerned the deal forced subscribers to deal with a new phone company that earned an “F” rating from the Better Business Bureau, all while personally enriching company executives and shareholders in a tax-free transaction.  They don’t want to see a repeat performance for rural New York residents.

Brodsky and Foley argue that such sales should be in the interests of ratepayers, especially rural customers who have few alternative choices.  Their legislation would compel Verizon to share 40 percent of the proceeds of any sale with their customers — the ones that pay the monthly bills that made Verizon’s network possible.  Alternatively, Verizon could spend an equal amount on verifiable infrastructure improvements and escape writing checks to ratepayers.  In either case, the legislation forces Verizon to spend less on bonus bonanzas for a handful of deal-making executives and more on the customers who have to live with the results.

Verizon lobbyists and company officials have routinely mischaracterized the legislation, claiming it singles out the state’s largest phone company with a “40 percent tax” that “exempts cable companies.”  They have also repeatedly hinted the legislation could force Verizon out of the state.

“That weighs as heavily in our decision as do things like power, taxes, environment,” Verizon spokesman John Bonomo said. “The business climate in the state is as important as some of those other factors.”

Verizon officials have not exactly been subtle about what they want to get the multi-billion dollar project ultimately built:  solid opposition to the two bills, which garnered support from consumer and ratepayer groups and the Communications Workers of America.  The legislation passed the state Assembly but ultimately died in the Senate several weeks ago.  Verizon is obsessed about keeping such bills from being reintroduced.

With billions at stake, the western New York delegation of politicians in Niagara and nearby Erie Counties have been especially supine to Verizon’s arguments.  In particular, some Republicans in the state legislature have made it their mission to see the bill permanently killed.

Unfortunately, the quality of the reporting done by local media about Verizon’s lobbying agenda has been especially underwhelming — frequently shallow, lazy, and downright inaccurate.  The assertions raised about the Brodsky/Foley legislation in area newspapers and television news reports makes one wonder if any of the reporters actually read the bills in question.

Take Bill Wolcott’s piece in the Lockport Union-Sun & Journal.

Wolcott never strays far from Verizon’s talking points, describing the bills as “[containing] conditions for givebacks of 40 percent for telephone providers, but does not do the same with cable TV corporations.”

Wolcott does not bother to accurately depict “givebacks” in terms of what they actually are — refunds to Verizon customers.

Verizon’s red herring complaint of unfair treatment is also repeated by the reporter, who apparently does not realize there are major differences between Time Warner Cable, which controls the overwhelming majority of cable subscribers in western and central New York and Verizon’s telephone operations:

1. Time Warner Cable has no plans to sell off its network to the highest bidder, abandoning rural and suburban areas served today.  Verizon did exactly that in most of the dozen states it left on July 1st;
2. Verizon’s landline network provides universal service to New York telephone customers, for which it receives a substantial subsidy from the Universal Service Fund;
3. Time Warner Cable is not held to universal service standards, something Verizon rarely complains about these days now that the phone company is in the same business as Time Warner through its selectively deployed FiOS network (which incidentally is not available in the Niagara county area where the data center is proposed.)
4. Verizon’s prior landline selloffs have almost always resulted in bankruptcies for the buyers, leaving phone customers uncertain about the level of service they will ultimately receive.

The Buffalo News reporter did little better, misrepresenting a fundamental part of the bill (underlining ours):

Under the weight of a multibillion- dollar deficit, the State Assembly in the spring passed a bill that would require telephone companies to return 40 percent of their proceeds to the state if they reached a joint venture with another company or sold off some of their properties in New York.

Reporter Teresa Sharp managed to bungle an important fact.  The state of New York would not receive the proceeds — Verizon ratepayers would.

Most television coverage didn’t bother to challenge the inaccurate assertions made by Republican lawmakers or Verizon representatives either.  Talking points were read and reporters simply nodded their heads.

As a public service to the Buffalo-area media, Stop the Cap! presents a primer on the actual language of the legislation Verizon wants to see dead (underlining ours):

         (1) PROVIDES SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO RATEPAYERS.
   49    (2)  EQUITABLY ALLOCATES, WHERE THE COMMISSION HAS RATEMAKING AUTHORI-
   50  TY, THE TOTAL SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM FORECASTED ECONOMIC BENEFITS,  AS
   51  DETERMINED  BY  THE  COMMISSION, OF THE PROPOSED MERGER, ACQUISITION, OR
   52  CONTROL BETWEEN SHAREHOLDERS AND RATEPAYERS.  RATEPAYERS  SHALL  RECEIVE
   53  NOT  LESS  THAN  FORTY  PERCENT OF SUCH BENEFITS; PROVIDED, HOWEVER THAT
   54  REINVESTMENT OF SUCH BENEFITS  IN  A  TELEPHONE  CORPORATION'S  IN-STATE
   55  INFRASTRUCTURE MAY BE DEEMED TO SATISFY SUCH REQUIREMENT.

What this means is that Verizon has two choices if it chooses to throw its rural New York landline customers overboard — before paying enormous cash bonuses to executives and deliver subscribers into the waiting hands of a potentially unstable buyer, up to 40 percent of the proceeds must be reinvested in improving the existing telephone network.  Barring that, the same percentage of proceeds must be returned to ratepayers in the form of refund checks or service credits.

Verizon may have a major problem giving customers their fair share, but they have no problem asking New York taxpayers for generous tax breaks.

Verizon has applied for a 20-year payment-in-lieu-of-taxes, or PILOT agreement, which would deliver substantial property tax savings, not a small matter in a region with the highest property taxes in the country.  It also wants a sales tax exemption on building materials and the equipment to be installed at the data center.  The sales tax break alone is expected to cost state taxpayers up to $330 million in lost tax revenue.

Because Verizon is upset about the legislation, local politicians have done one better expressing outrage that Albany politicians could drive Verizon to pack up its data center and head out of state.

Somerset Supervisor Richard Meyers was quoted in Wolcott’s piece suggesting New York residents don’t want any part of a bill that returns money to phone customers if Verizon sells them out.

“I’ll tell you who’s calling the shots in the Senate, and that’s the residents of New York state,” Meyers said. “The average citizen in New York state does not like this bill, and I don’t either. I think it stinks. It’s not a necessary bill, and there’s a lot of time and energy wasted.”

Assemblywoman Jane Corwin, (R-Clarence) characterized the legislation as a union plot, quoted bashing the bills in the Lockport newspaper:

“It’s a very bad bill, being pushed by the Communication Workers of America, the union that represents the workforce at Verizon,” she said. “Of all the people that stand to get hurt, it’s the employees that would get hurt the most, and the investors as well. The whole bill doesn’t make sense.”

“This bill chills any business incentive to invest in New York state … because they stand to lose 40 percent of that investment down the line. The playing field will be made uneven, if we start taking 40 percent of that potential away from Verizon and not from the cable companies and Internet companies.”

She  contends that the CWA was putting pressure on the Assembly. “The shame of it all is that it’s been driven by a special interest group. They are the ones pushing this bill.”

What is especially chilling is that Corwin never bothers to mention concern for the one group affected above all others: Verizon landline customers.  To her, they are incidental.  The CWA?  A “special interest group.”  Verizon?  A source of campaign contributions for her.  This year, she has already picked up some nice change from the folks at Big Red:

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC 140 WEST ST. ROOM 2613 NEW YORK, NY 10007	250.00	16-MAR-10	JANE CORWIN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE	2010 July Periodic	B	Member of Assembly	142
VERIZON GOOD GOVERNMENT CLUB-NEW YORK 140 WEST ST; RM 2613 NEW YORK, NY 10007	300.00	01-SEP-10	JANE CORWIN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE	2010 32 Pre General	C	Member of Assembly	142

Source: New York State Board of Elections

That’s not bad for a New York Assemblywoman serving a rural district whose total campaign take since her first election is just under $125,000.

State senator George Maziarz (R-Newfane) is just as bad.

“It’s a terrible piece of legislation, and I’m doing all I can to make sure it doesn’t pass,” said Maziarz, who heads the Senate’s Energy and Telecommunications Committee.

Verizon also thanks Maziarz for his efforts, for which he has been well-rewarded in the last two election cycles:

VERIZON COMM FOR GOOD GOVT 140 WEST NY, NY 10007	500.00	06-MAY-08	COMMITTEE TO ELECT MAZIARZ STATE SENATE	2008 July Periodic	C	State Senator	62
VERIZON COMM INC GOOD GOVT 140 WEST NY, NY 10007	4,000.00	26-MAR-08	COMMITTEE TO ELECT MAZIARZ STATE SENATE	2008 July Periodic	C	State Senator	62
VERIZON COMM INC GOOD GOVT CLUB 140 WEST NY, NY 10007	3,000.00	12-FEB-10	COMMITTEE TO ELECT MAZIARZ STATE SENATE	2010 July Periodic	C	State Senator	62
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS PAC 140 WEST NY, NY 10007	3,000.00	11-MAY-10	COMMITTEE TO ELECT MAZIARZ STATE SENATE	2010 July Periodic	C	State Senator	62
VERIZON GOOD GOVT CLUB NY 140 WEST NY, NY 10007	3,000.00	27-JUL-10	COMMITTEE TO ELECT MAZIARZ STATE SENATE	2010 32 Pre General	C	State Senator	62

Source: New York State Board of Elections

The prospect of new high technology jobs and investment are more than promising to an upstate economy that has suffered difficult economic times for years.  But Verizon’s threats to skip Somerset for its new data center because of “anti-business” hostility ignores the company’s own willingness to abandon its rural customers.  In states where Verizon has sold off landline service — ending the prospects for real improvements in broadband and other modern services — communities like Somerset were the first to go, seen as too small and isolated for Verizon’s urban-based business plans.

The legislation Verizon fears protects New York residents, including those in Niagara County, from deals that enrich a handful of executives and Wall Street bankers while delivering sub-standard service to customers left behind.  Verizon’s record of sell-offs has been a disaster for customers, forced to endure long-term service disruptions, inaccurate bills with unfair charges, low quality broadband, and high prices.

Ironically, Verizon’s fear is totally misplaced, assuming they intend to remain committed to serving customers across the state — from cities as large as New York -and- towns as small as Somerset.  Even using Verizon’s own language, they can avoid the 40% “tax” if they simply keep providing service to their customers.

That’s just one of many facts the media in western New York needs to do a much better job of communicating to their readers and viewers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Data Center 10-18-10.flv[/flv]

WIVB and WKBW-TV in Buffalo delivered several one-sided reports about the proposed Verizon Data Center while allow inaccurate information about Assemblyman Brodsky’s proposed bill to go unchallenged.  (8 minutes)

As the fall elections near, the rhetoric and sheer nonsense from those opposed to important consumer broadband reforms has reached a fever pitch.  And as our reader Karen writes, too many Americans and the candidates they support just don’t get it.

Here in Delaware, Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell exemplifies what Net Neutrality supporters are up against — complete ignorance and big cash contributions.  Before she went into hiding, I attended one of Christine’s rare public events and asked her about where she stood on Net Neutrality and her response was she believed “all sides should be represented on the Internet.”  So she thinks Net Neutrality is about views expressed online, not stopping the telecom industry from slowing or blocking access to websites.

At least 35 of the Tea Party groups are opposed to Net Neutrality, mostly because their financial backers (big corporations and billionaire-funded front groups) have convinced members they should be.  Many others are stupid enough to believe Glenn Beck and his pal Phil Kerpen at Americans for Prosperity who say Net Neutrality will “censor” the Internet or turn control of it over to Barack Obama.

Conservative groups heavily funded by corporate interests they refuse to identify are backing various chapters of so-called “Tea Party” groups and feeding them talking points generated by companies like AT&T and Verizon in opposition to Net Neutrality.  The Center for Individual Freedom runs a website StopNetRegulation, edited by conservative activist Seton Motley, dedicated to derailing broadband reforms.  Motley was also quoted in The Hill in late September warning Republicans about antagonizing Tea Party types with their support for Net Neutrality in Congress.  Only then his comments came as leader of the group “Less Government.”  Judging from the organization’s website, Motley is also in favor of reduced size websites because his amounts to a single sentence.

Seton is convinced the end of the net world, as we know it, comes November 30th when the government could “seize control of the Internet.” That’s the date of the FCC’s November meeting, at which Seton suspects Julius Genachowski will finally move to reclassify broadband as a telecommunication service. 

Seton completely misrepresents reclassification as saddling the Internet with “the same rules as landline telephones.”  I read that claim somewhere before… oh yes, straight from AT&T and Verizon lobbyist talking points.

It doesn’t matter to Seton and other conservatives that Genachowski went out of his way to say he would not be applying any onerous telephone-era regulations on today’s broadband providers.  In fact, Genachowski’s actions to date have moved at such a glacial pace, friends have to occasionally check his pulse to make sure he’s still with us.

So what is so big, bad, and scary about Net Neutrality?  It simply guarantees your Internet Service Provider doesn’t start throttling your speeds when accessing websites and Internet applications they dislike, cannot block access to websites critical of their agenda, and are not allowed to extort payments from content providers just to allow traffic onto “their” networks.

While that may pose a Halloween freak-out for the profit-obsessed phone and cable companies, it’s hard to find actual consumers (not paid by said providers) who want their Internet service blocked or slowed down.

Seton goes way over the top turning this into a First Amendment free speech issue.  That argument only works for the likes of AT&T and Verizon who find their corporate right to overcharge people for broadband being infringed.

Seton then argues his view must be right because even minority groups support his position.  As readers here already know, most of the groups he names to bolster his argument are “dollar-a-holler” organizations willing to peddle the phone and cable company agenda on their letterhead in return for donation checks.

So have many additional normally Democrat paragons, including several large unions: AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of America (CWA), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); several racial grievance groups: League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Minority Media and Telecom Council (MMTC), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Urban League; and an anti-free market environmentalist group: the Sierra Club.

If you ever wondered why AT&T and Verizon spend so much on contributions to these interest groups, Seton Motley just handed you the answer — so he and the companies he supports could name drop them in arguments against pro-consumer broadband reform.  And considering the CWA and IBEW represent phone company workers, it’s not a surprise to see them on their side of this issue either.  Wherever you look amongst those in opposition to Net Neutrality, a check from AT&T and/or Verizon is almost always waiting to be deposited.

The Obama-Has-Concentration-Camps-crowd parked on Andrew Breitbart’s website ate it up and wrote comments like this:

The communist can’t control the people with a internet that is out of control, all dictatorships have the power over what the people can read, free thinkers in this day and age are considered terrorist, Republicans, conservatives, anti abortionist, Oath Keepers, Christians, ex military, people who think the Constitution is still the law of the land, my lord, the communist can’t have these sorts communicating with each other over the internet, why, they may all come together one day and put a stop to the one world government goal, you know, the goal of making the world one big slave camp.

This kind of wild opposition has even corporate Republicans on edge, according to The Hill.  A major talking point of Net Neutrality opposition is that such “sweeping changes” should not be enforced by the FCC, but from legislation enacted in Congress.  But because Tea Party elements are opposed to the concept altogether, and Republicans are loathe to hand Democrats their votes on much of anything, even a corporate-friendly Net Neutrality bill introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) went up in flames.  Waxman’s bill would have enacted some protections, but only until 2012, at which point it was open season on broadband consumers.

The Hill piece delivered a disappointing fact of life for much of today’s Congress, beholden first to corporate interests (underlining ours):

In a striking sign that people who normally align themselves with telecommunications companies may line up behind the bill if it is industry-backed, ardent net-neutrality critic Brett Glass, founder of a wireless company, is open to it. He tweeted on Monday, in a note to Americans for Prosperity executive Phil Kerpen, that the Waxman legislation seems “more reasonable than I expected.”

In a note earlier this month, analysts at Stifel Nicolaus wrote that although Republican House members “may not have incentive to solve a political problem for Democrats,” some may support the bill “if there’s a push by” phone and cable companies and at least some Internet companies.

But the shilling for Big Telecom has never been a one-party-problem.  While Republicans appear to be moving in lock step against Net Neutrality, a number of groups and politicians on the Democratic left have also been only too willing to take AT&T money and run to a microphone to oppose a free and open Internet.

The Los Angeles Times gave plenty of space on an issue we’ve written repeatedly about on Stop the Cap!:

Key minority groups are backing the carriers’ efforts to thwart the net neutrality proposals, which would, for instance, prohibit carriers from charging more to give some residential and corporate customers priority in delivering online content.

“When you give national civil rights groups millions of private dollars, there’s no firewall strong enough to keep that money out of their policy,” said Malkia Cyril, executive director of the Center for Media Justice.

Cyril and other consumer and public advocates have been buoyed by comments from Federal Communications Commission member Mignon L. Clyburn, a prominent African American and daughter of Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.).

She said in a speech in January that she was surprised that most statements and filings by “some of the leading groups representing people of color have been silent on this make-or-break issue” of net neutrality.

“There has been almost no discussion of how important — how essential — it is for traditionally underrepresented groups to maintain the low barriers to entry that our current open Internet provides,” Clyburn said.

At issue are the enormous contributions from big phone and cable companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon that routinely translate into what we’ve called “dollar-a-holler” advocacy.  After the checks get deposited, many of these groups generate innocent sounding letters of support for the latest merger, deregulation, or policy debate — always in favor of Big Telecom and too often directly against the interests of the people they claim to represent.

No group better exemplifies this than the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), a particularly eager player in the cash for advocacy game.  And the group doesn’t care whether the money comes from Verizon or AT&T.  They’re on board with both.

Brent A. Wilkes, executive director, penned this guest editorial for the Houston Chronicle, for which he was called an “idiot” by at least one of the newspaper’s readers:

Net-neutrality rules should prevent broadband providers from engaging in anti-competitive behavior, but they should not be commandeered to insulate wealthy Internet applications companies from paying their fair share of the broadband bill. Any new rules must protect consumers both by ensuring their unfettered access and by shielding them from having to shoulder all the costs for faster broadband networks that our nation so badly needs. Such an approach will not please the special interests, but it will be a double win for consumers.

From AT&T’s talking points to Wilkes editorial.  “Wealthy Internet applications companies” already pay for their own bandwidth and for the Internet’s expansion.  Search engine companies like Google and Yahoo! construct data centers with their own money just to maintain their services to consumers, generating jobs and helping local economies.  Wilkes ignores the fact broadband providers already earn plenty from their subscribers — consumers and businesses who pay a monthly fee so they can access those “wealthy Internet applications companies.”

But that is not enough.  Now broadband providers want to be paid twice.  To facilitate their argument, they’ve invested more than a million dollars in LULAC alone to defend their position, which ultimately brings Latinos (and everyone else) the high broadband bills today that Wiles scaremongers will be forthcoming tomorrow.

Wilkes was shocked, shocked by the implication that phone company money would have anything to do with LULAC going out of its way to comment on arcane telecommunications policy issues, always in favor of its benefactors.

“It’s kind of like saying the minority organizations can’t think for themselves,” Wilkes said, adding that any suggestion that minority groups were mouthpieces for the industry was “offensive.”

Verizon played along:

“I can tell you we do not, and have not ever, given money to minority organizations so that they will support our positions on any topic,” said Peter Thonis, a spokesman for Verizon Communications Inc. “We talk to many groups about our positions, and some agree with us and some do not.”

So if Verizon talked to Stop the Cap! about their positions, do you think we’d receive a handsome check from the phone company?

The Times documented numerous other examples:

For instance, David Cohen, Comcast’s executive vice president, joined the board of the National Urban League three years ago as part of a three-year partnership to promote the league’s various educational programs. Comcast, now seeking FCC approval to buy a controlling interest in NBC Universal, was recognized that year for being one of several sponsors to donate $5 million or more to the organization.

On the local level, the Greater Sacramento Urban League has Barbara Winn, a Sacramento-area director of external affairs for AT&T, as its chairwoman and Linda Crayton, Comcast’s senior director for government affairs in California, as vice chairwoman.

That affiliate’s president, David B. DeLuz, wrote to the FCC in January that net neutrality rules “will strongly reduce broadband network investments and ultimately raise prices.” DeLuz said in an interview that the two telecom executives on the chapter’s board have not influenced its net neutrality stance.

“The Urban League does not engage in pay to play,” he said. “Just because [telecoms] write a check to us doesn’t mean they write the only check to us.”

The most remarkable part about the Urban League’s argument is that in a sea of corporate cash, competing checks can cancel each other out.

While the blizzard of bucks continues to descend on Washington, Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt decided his cable company could cut out the middlemen and go right to the man with the plan to reclassify broadband.  Unlike ordinary consumers, Britt had no trouble getting FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to take his call, allowing him to personally lobby against Net Neutrality and those nasty broadcasters trying to overcharge him for permission to carry local broadcast stations on the Time Warner Cable dial.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Net Neutrality There’s a problem.mp4[/flv]

It seems like only yesterday AT&T’s Ed “Our Pipes” Whitacre was clamoring for the right to deliver the Internet to consumers his way, complete with pay walls and speed throttles.  Very little has changed since Big Ed left for Government Motors with his $158 million AT&T golden parachute.  The name at the top has changed, but AT&T still recognizes money buys friends and influence.  (2 minutes)