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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grassroots this isn’t.

Accidental Evidence: The Consequences of An Exposed PowerPoint Presentation

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

Now the truth can be told.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Target Groups

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

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

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

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

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

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

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

[Looking for more great examples of industry-backed dollar-a-holler front groups opposing Net Neutrality? Just click here and set your scroll wheel on turbo because we’ve compiled some examples you won’t believe!]

Americans for Prosperity's claim that grandma will face a $300 broadband bill will only become reality if Internet providers get away with Internet Overcharging schemes that would triple the price you pay for broadband service.

Americans for Prosperity, the group that harassed residents of Salisbury, North Carolina last year with push polls and recorded phone messages opposing municipal broadband, is renewing its effort to sign up the tea party crowd to oppose Net Neutrality reforms.

Ostensibly representing those favoring “less government,” AFP is actually a corporate front group founded by oil billionaire David Koch but also backed by telecom interests.  The group shills for large phone and cable companies to keep them deregulated, and opposes consumer reforms.  The group’s spokesman on Net Neutrality is Phil Kerpen — a regular on Fox News — appearing on Glenn Beck’s program to nod in agreement to wild claims that Net Neutrality is Maoist.

Now the group has unveiled a new advertisement opposing Net Neutrality and is spending $1.4 million dollars in its first ad buy.  The 30-second ad targets legislators with wild claims about Net Neutrality that don’t pass even the most rudimentary truth tests.

Comparing Net Neutrality with Washington-directed bailouts of banks and the auto industry, the group claims Washington wants to “spend billions to take over the Internet.”  Apparently the Internet is available for purchase on eBay.

In reality, the only group with the deep pockets is this debate is America’s telecommunications companies, who are among the biggest spenders for lobbyists, astroturf campaigns that claim to represent consumer interests, and writing big campaign contribution checks to state and federal elected legislators.

Establishing Net Neutrality protections doesn’t cost billions.  Fighting against establishing Net Neutrality might.

In fact, the biggest expense the Federal Communications Commission faces in its efforts to adopt Net Neutrality reforms will come from legal expenses brought about by continuous provider lawsuits.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Americans for Prosperity Dont Regulate the Internet Ad 5-2010.flv[/flv]

Americans for Prosperity’s anti-Net Neutrality advertisement claims Washington is spending “billions” to “take over the Internet.”  (30 seconds)

An amateurish animated video accompanying the ad on AFP’s YouTube channel extends the lies into the ionosphere:

• The video claims the government is preparing to take over the Internet, which is false.
• It implies the majority of Americans oppose Net Neutrality, also false.
• The video suggests that businesses will be prohibited from purchasing faster broadband, because under Net Neutrality, everyone will share the exact same broadband speed, both of which are totally false.
• Grandma, who “only uses the Internet to check e-mail,” will be prohibited from buying cheaper access under Net Neutrality.  More deception.

The video ends with a bleeped expletive.  Real professional.

[flv width=”641″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Americans for Prosperity Animated Anti Net Neutrality Video 5-2010.flv[/flv]

Americans for Prosperity’s animated anti-Net Neutrality video makes wild claims that don’t come close to being h0nest with the viewer. [Warning: Loud Video — Turn Down Volume Before Playing] (1 minute)

Let’s Get Real.

FACT: If anyone is trying to “take over the Internet,” it’s a handful of corporate providers who won’t agree to common sense regulations that guarantee they will not block or impede web traffic.  If they have no intention of engaging in bad behavior, why spend millions of dollars to fight the regulations?

FACT: Americans favor Net Neutrality protections that guarantee net freedom and keep providers from further increasing your broadband bill by monetizing every aspect of the Internet.

FACT: Americans buy broadband based on speed tiers.  Net Neutrality does nothing to change this model.  Any business seeking faster service can continue to acquire it, if they can find a provider to sell it to them.  What Net Neutrality prohibits are Internet Service Providers artificially slowing down your website traffic unless and until you agree to protection payments to take the speed throttles off.

FACT: Most providers sell “Lite” broadband service to those seeking cheaper access or who only need the Internet for basic web browsing or e-mail access.  Some communities even offer basic Wi-Fi access to the Internet for free, and the Obama Administration is proposing to modify the Universal Service Fund to help economically disadvantaged Americans obtain basic web access at a more affordable price.

FACT: The only way a broadband bill is going to achieve the $300 price tag found in this video is if providers are permitted to run roughshod over their customers with Internet Overcharging schemes.  Some earlier proposed broadband “pricing experiments” would effectively triple the price for broadband service Americans pay, but that has nothing to do with Washington.  That can be laid directly at the feet of the same broadband providers who are writing enormous checks to astroturfers like Americans for Prosperity to hoodwink Americans into supporting things directly opposed to their best interests.

Don’t be Americans for Prosperity’s sucker.

AT&T has discovered marketing gold.  What do you do when you run one of America’s worst-rated mobile networks — the one that drops your calls, doesn’t provide uniform reception and is often woefully overloaded — and don’t want to spend what it takes to upgrade?  How about developing a “Home Cell Tower” device that helps solve AT&T’s problems, but adds to yours by charging you $150 for the privilege of owning one.

AT&T’s 3G MicroCell shouldn’t need to exist.  If AT&T had reliable coverage, nobody would need to own a device that helps their bottom line far more than yours.

The MicroCell is sold to customers who are stuck walking their AT&T mobile phone over to the nearest window in order to get a signal from AT&T.  The unit, manufactured by Cisco, plugs into your home broadband connection and effectively creates a tiny “home cell tower.”  Suddenly, you now have five bars of reception indoors and can make and receive calls and reliably use the data features of your smartphone.  AT&T effectively moves your service off their own congested, weak-signal mobile network,  and routes everything over your Internet connection instead.

AT&T 3G MicroCell

It’s a win-win for AT&T.  They get to charge you a substantial markup for a device that costs far less than $150 to manufacture and reduces the urgency to commit to needed upgrades to solve congestion problems.

But AT&T’s marketing department has also figured out a way to earn an even bigger bonus along the way.

Customers who do not choose a special added-cost AT&T MicroCell add-on plan (a ludicrous $19.99 per month plus a $1.25 monthly bill-padding-“regulatory recovery fee”) will be shocked to discover AT&T deducts minutes from your calling allowance even when using the MicroCell to provide you with service.  It takes a special kind of nerve to charge customers for making and receiving calls that don’t even use the company’s mobile network.  It’s like AT&T setting up a kiosk in front of the nearest Verizon payphone and charging you $1 for the privilege of paying Verizon 25 cents to make a call.  The $20 a month add-on plan doesn’t even cover data usage, which means AT&T charges you for accessing data and text messages sent and received over your own home broadband connection.

The Associated Press reviewed AT&T’s 3G MicroCell and seemed unimpressed.

Despite marketing claims it will deliver more bars in more places within 5,000 square feet, the AP found the MicroCell only managed a less impressive 40 feet. AT&T admits concrete or brick walls can also reduce coverage. For all practical purposes, don’t expect the device to provide much help out in the yard.

AT&T also claims MicroCell users can initiate calls from the MicroCell and have them “seamlessly” transferred to AT&T’s mobile network when they walk out of range.  The AP found more times than not, AT&T simply dropped the call, forcing the customer to start a new call.  Even worse, customers initiating a call on AT&T’s mobile network will find the MicroCell can’t take over when they arrive home, making the primary reason for getting the device irrelevant the moment you walk in the door and risk dropping the call.

The only good news is that introductory promotions can knock down the upfront price.  Customers committing themselves to the $20 MicroCell add-on calling plan qualify for a $100 rebate when purchasing the MicroCell.  If you also sign up for new AT&T DSL or U-verse service when buying the MicroCell, you can get an additional $50 rebate, effectively making the MicroCell free to own.  AT&T broadband customers will also get $10 off the MicroCell add-on calling plan.

There is nothing inherently wrong with offering customers these devices, known in the industry as femtocells, but companies like AT&T should be providing them at-cost and be grateful when customers use them.  Instead, the company treats these customers as nothing more than another profit center, ripping them off with a ludicrously priced add-on calling plan to avoid watching call allowances erode away, even when calls don’t travel over AT&T’s mobile network.

[flv width=”586″ height=”310″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT MicroCell Demo.flv[/flv]

This video covers how AT&T markets their MicroCell device and accompanying add-on plan and also includes a brief tutorial on how the device works.  (4 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/AP ATT’s Home Cell Tower Delivers an Added Cost 5-5-10.flv[/flv]

The Associated Press reviewed the AT&T MicroCell and ultimately wondered why customers had to pay for a device to improve service you already pay to receive.  (2 minutes)

[Updated 2:30pm — Coverage area correction made.]

We have the complete video of last week’s Revenue Laws Study Committee meeting which featured the introduction of a draft bill that would dramatically restrict any entrant into North Carolina’s broadband marketplace unless they were a private industry provider.  The de-facto municipal broadband ban legislation comes courtesy of retiring Senator David ‘Fiber is Obsolete’ Hoyle (D-Gaston), who sprung the proposed bill minutes before debate was to begin.  Despite the fact opponents (and consumers) were left unprepared to push back against Hoyle’s anti-consumer legislation, a few legislators and citizens rallied to the cause.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NC Rev Laws Study Comm 5.5.10-1.mp4[/flv]

North Carolina Revenue Laws Study Committee Meeting (May 5, 2010 — 47 minutes)

A Viewer’s Guide

Senator Daniel G. Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg) wants both sides to “turn the volume down,” apparently not appreciating the fact a retiring senator pushing through an anti-consumer telecommunications company dream-come-true draft bill would likely provoke a consumer backlash.

Rep. Weiss was the loudest opponent of the proposed legislation to stop municipal broadband

Clodfelter is surprised the debate has become so polarized.  It shouldn’t be, considering this debate is hardly a new one.  Consumer advocates have seen providers use the same road map to enact anti-consumer municipal broadband prohibitions in more than a dozen states.  The same talking points and arguments appear every time this issue comes up.  Consumers are fed up with the corporate protectionism these bills represent, and they become extremely angry when those elected to represent them instead represent the interests of big corporate telecom companies.

Clodfelter’s ultimate vote spoke louder than his pleas for civility — he voted for the draft that guarantees North Carolina consumers will continue to pay high prices for telecommunications services.

Senator David Hoyle’s eyes rarely left his carefully prepared talking points.  Perhaps that’s because he’s not as familiar with the issues as he claims to be.  When a legislator is forced to keep his eyes on his remarks, seeming to stumble through several important points, it suggests unfamiliarity with the issues.  That’s hardly a surprise when legislation is introduced by a telecom-friendly legislator who knows only as much as the accompanying information packet of talking points allows.

We saw that first hand last year with Ty Harrell, who introduced legislation that he so fundamentally didn’t understand, he was later forced to repudiate his own bill.  Watch Hoyle and ask yourself — is this a legislator who understands municipal broadband, or is this a senator carrying water for big telecom?

Hoyle’s testimony contained many interesting comments we’d like to rebut:

“The level playing field aspect is gone.”  He’s got that right.  His proposed draft bill mires municipal providers with terms and conditions no private provider ever endured.  Where is your referendum about whether or not you wanted to pay Time Warner Cable for dozens of channels you never asked for, and don’t want?  Where is your referendum about whether or not you want the incumbent cable and phone companies to continue providing service in your town?  Does the phone company need to hold a referendum to replace phone wiring on the poles?  No?  Then why does Hoyle’s bill demand referendums for municipal system repairs and upgrades?

Rep. Luebke characterized Hoyle's proposal as premature and urged his colleagues to support further study on this issue

Hoyle misrepresented the financing of municipal broadband projects, most of which are not financed at the expense of every local taxpayer.  His carefully crafted suggestion that citizens should vote for such projects is a nice concept, but remember incumbent providers can use unlimited amounts of money they’ve earned from overcharging you for years to bombard residents with misinformation.  Meanwhile, your local government cannot spend a penny to rebut them.  Is that a fair vote or one engineered to provide victory to incumbent providers?

Senator Hoyle suggested unnamed interests have said he has a vendetta against cities — that he doesn’t like cities.  That’s an example of a politician constructing a false straw-man argument to shoot down.  Of course his real “vendetta” is against North Carolina consumers.  With Hoyle not seeking re-election, he doesn’t have to answer to them.

Hoyle brought up the sale of bankrupt Adelphia Cable’s systems to the local governments of Mooresville and Davidson, and then demagogued it with cherry-picked talking points, conflating an old, outdated cable system with construction of state-of-the-art fiber systems as proposed in communities like Salisbury.

Adelphia Cable’s founders and chief corporate executives are sitting in a federal penitentiary.  A court found both John and Timothy Rigas guilty of more than a dozen counts of fraud and conspiracy in 2004, a decision largely upheld in 2008, and both continue to serve 12 and 17 year sentences respectively.

Every Adelphia Cable system put up for sale by the Bankruptcy Court was littered with problems.  In San Diego, inspectors found more than 3,000 improperly grounded cable connections in customer homes.  Company records were in chaos as well, and the result was major headaches for buyer Time Warner Cable.

The North Carolina Adelphia systems were not much different.  The communities had been victimized twice by providers who delivered broken promises, fewer channels at higher prices, and bad service.  When Time Warner Cable proposed to take control of the systems and wouldn’t meet the communities needs, Mooresville and Davidson decided to exercise right of first refusal and purchase the systems themselves.

What they found after closing the deal were the same kinds of problem Time Warner Cable and Comcast were dealing with in other former Adelphia communities.  The difference is the cable companies just raised customers’ rates to defray the costs of cleaning them up.  They also left many towns with cable systems built based on economy more than customer needs.  With limited competition, where could dissatisfied subscribers go?

Mooresville and Davidson both faced:

A significant number of subscribers who stopped paying for service from Adelphia much earlier and faced no consequences or service suspension.  When MI-Connection, the municipal provider, began billing for services rendered, they canceled.  Of course, the sellers never disclosed the fact there were many non-paying customers getting service for free.  When the towns purchased the systems, it assumed subscriber numbers provided represented paying customers.  It turns out many weren’t.

Then there were more surprises:

Sen. Stein suggested legislation that could keep the United States behind in broadband adoption was of concern to him.

• Leamon Brice, Davidson town manager, told the Davidson News, “After the borrowing, but before the closing, Time-Warner, custodian of the system for one year, announced there were many more customers in the system than originally thought. As a result, the towns had to spend $12 million of the $80 million to buy those additional customers. This left less money for the upgrade of the system, so the towns borrowed an additional $12 million to complete the necessary improvements.”
• An economic crisis which is driving down subscriber rates for cable services nationwide.
• The early unavailability of a “triple play bundle” combining telephone, video, and broadband service on one bill.  Bundling is the economic driver of today’s telecommunications industry, and the two communities were late to get in on it.
• The high cost of system upgrades, especially with a system administered by Adelphia, which let most of its cable properties fall into disrepair long before bankruptcy.

Although Hoyle called out both communities for their losses, his numbers don’t add up.  He claimed the systems will lose $6.8 million dollars a year, based on one quarterly loss statement he chose to multiply by four.  In fact, the communities are seeking a one time $6.4 million allocation in the 2010-11 budget year, of which Davidson’s share is $2 million, to make up for the losses associated with all of the drama surrounding the Adelphia system purchase and upgrades.

Hoyle ignored the potential for MI-Connection, now that the upgrades are near completion and the company has introduced an aggressive triple-play package.  Revenues are up nearly 10 percent over the same period last year — an impressive result during an economic crisis.  Most of that growth came from newly launched broadband and telephone services.

The system needs only a few thousand additional customers to erase the losses.  Offering a compelling triple play bundled service package should help them achieve that goal.

Despite the difficulties associated with Adelphia’s legacy cable systems, most of the municipal broadband projects Hoyle seeks to stall are actually 100 percent fiber-based and are designed to service both residential and business customers with service far beyond what the local cable and phone companies are willing to provide.

The committee then heard input from speakers in the audience, with a two minute limit.  Unfortunately, that was too long for at least some committee members who chatted audibly as speakers tried to make their points.

One of those speaking in favor of the proposed draft was Octavia Rainey, once again seated with the lobbyists from Time Warner Cable and AT&T.  She arrived at the microphone with her practiced talking points.

After Rainey’s prior comments on this issue, we reached out to Ms. Rainey to get a better understanding of her point of view and establish a dialogue. When I attempted to speak with Rainey, she first hung up on me only to call back several minutes later to accuse me of being a “white supremacist,” even though I had revealed to her I also serve as a Human Relations Commissioner in Greensboro and fight against racial prejudice daily.

Such over-the-top accusations are not unheard of in this policy debate, particularly with some civil rights groups who attempt to shut down debate with accusations of bias when their public policy positions do not comport with the stated founding principles of that group. Usually, when this card is played, it comes when you’ve successfully called out the empty rhetoric and fact-challenged talking points most of these groups use to defend big telecom. Rainey is just another example of a well-meaning local community activist who has been duped by telecom astroturfing efforts, and AT&T’s financial involvement in causes helpful to her public profile don’t hurt either.

The litmus test for astroturf snowjob detection is simple:

• Will the constituents these individuals and groups claim to represent be well-served with a protected duopoly in broadband that prices service out of their reach?
• Has the group fully and publicly disclosed their financial contributions from telecommunications companies and the amounts given?
• Are there telecom company representatives serving on the board of the group?

Too often, following the money is all that’s required to understand the allegiance some groups and individuals have to adopting the telecom agenda.

At the end of the discussion, a vote was held and the draft bill passed.  There were only two audible “no” votes — from Representatives Jennifer Weiss (D-Wake County) and Paul Luebke (D-Durham).  I was told Senator Josh Stein (D-Wake County) also voted no, stating he did not “shout it out, but I definitely voted against the bill.”

The draft bill now goes to the House and Senate leadership to be assigned to committees.  If it survives the committee process, it moves to the full House and Senate.  I understand that leadership in both the House and Senate do not want anything controversial in the short session to follow, so let’s let them know nothing is more controversial than legislation that guarantees slow and expensive broadband from existing providers, indefinitely.

Make sure you let the North Carolina legislature know that now is not the time to ram through a provider-friendly municipal broadband bill from Senator Hoyle.  Tell Speaker Hackney and President Pro Tempore Basnight the issue requires further study, and the bill should be referred back to appropriate committees for further review:

Speaker of the House Joe Hackney (D-Chatham, Orange, Moore) 919-733-3451 [email protected]

President Pro Tempore Marc Basnight (D-8 Coastal Counties) 919-733-6854 [email protected]

While several residents of Mound, Minnesota try to negotiate to keep their broadband service from Frontier Communications after the company sent them letters threatening to cut off their service, a Rochester, N.Y. television station handed over five minutes of airtime during its morning newscast that was little more than a promotion piece for Frontier’s broadband packages, right down to quoting inaccurate pricing, but no time to mention to viewers the company maintains a 5GB “appropriate usage limit” in its Acceptable Use Policy.

WHAM-TV ran a virtual infomercial (thanks to PreventCAPS for the tip) that was supposed to be about changing service providers, but devolved into a promotional puff piece for Frontier.  Among the services promoted were high bandwidth applications you can ostensibly use with Frontier DSL, despite the company’s continued insistence on defining an acceptable amount of usage at a level so low, you can’t possibly use those applications much and stay within the limits.

Michael Johns, from Frontier’s Network Operations Center misquoted Frontier’s own rates for DSL service, claiming the company sells service for between $18-26 a month, which seemed quite low.  We called Frontier Communications this morning to ask for those prices, telling the representative we saw them on WHAM’s sister CW Network station “CW16.”  The customer service representative in DeLand, Florida didn’t know what we were talking about.

In fact, we were quoted a far higher price for Frontier High-Speed Internet Lite – 768kbps service, with no term commitments starting at $39.99 a month. The representative claimed they could reduce the price, but only with a multi-year term commitment and a service bundle that included phone service. Even with those discounts, the price was still more than $20 a month. Considering Frontier’s term commitments carry a steep early disconnect penalty, there isn’t much value to be found here.

For standard 10Mbps DSL service, $26 a month isn’t going to get you far. In fact, Frontier wants around $45 a month for the service, not including a modem rental fee/equipment charge of $4 per month. Again, there were some discounts available for bundling, but they always carried those pesky term commitments and never brought the price down to what Johns claimed was available.

Michael Johns (left) from Frontier speaks with WHAM reporter Evan Dawson (right)

Also along for the ride was a hard sell for add on products like “anti-spam technology,” hard drive backup, technical support for your computer and Internet service — each carrying an additional monthly price.

Getting Frontier pinned down on prices is next to impossible as the representative kept coming back with new offers when I didn’t agree to “begin the sign up process today.” Apparently there is plenty of room for negotiation when signing up for Frontier service in a market where Time Warner Cable eats their DSL service for breakfast.

But the most fun came last when I asked about Frontier 5GB monthly usage allowance. The representative promised me “we don’t do that in your area so you can ignore that,” and “we’re never going to hold you to that. It’s there so we can control the pirate downloaders.” When I asked why Mound, Minnesota was apparently a hotbed of pirates (who knew?) the representative didn’t understand what I was talking about. When I explained, she put me on hold and came back apparently now acquainted with Frontier’s experimental hard capping in Mound, and asked me how I found out about that.

How did I, indeed.

If such experiments are deemed successful by the company, all of Frontier’s customers will find out about them soon enough.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHAM Rochester Changing Your Internet Provider 5-3-10.flv[/flv]

On Monday, WHAM-TV’s sister station “CW16” handed over five minutes of the morning news for an extended-length commercial for Frontier Communications.  Judge for yourself whether this story was about how to change providers or how to change to Frontier DSL.  (5 minutes)