More of the same you can already get elsewhere

If you’re a phone company unwilling to make the investment into delivering a real telco-TV package to customers, why not do online video on the cheap with a new online portal that offers 100,000 videos you can already easily find elsewhere online?

That works for Frontier Communications, who today is patting themselves on the back over the launch of my fitv.com, a new online video site.

“my fitv reflects the disappearing lines between televisions, personal computers and mobile devices and the way time is shifting. Today, consumers don’t have the time or patience to see programs at specific times, or to even sit through an entire program. my fitv gives viewers control, and its unique user experience offers more than 100,000 titles and seamless search and navigation functions. It’s all about search less and watch more,” says Maggie Wilderotter, Chairman and CEO of Frontier.

Unfortunately for Frontier, virtually all of their launch content is readily available and easy to find on sites like Hulu.  The site also contains a handful of news clips from two of the evening newscasts in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, with more promised in the future.

Hulu invites anyone to embed their video content, so even you can build your own online video portal.  But giving visitors a compelling reason to visit a site that offers little, if any, original content is a challenge.

The site is available to Frontier customers and those who aren’t, and why not?  Frontier isn’t out anything if outsiders start using the service.

Frontier isn’t the only phone company running an online video portal.  AT&T Entertainment launched last year repackaging Hulu and other content providers’ ’embeddable videos’ to an underwhelmed audience.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Frontier My FITV Ad.flv[/flv]

Frontier Communications ran this ad Sunday in Rochester, N.Y., Cincinnati, Ohio, Sacramento, Calif. and Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minn., to launch my fitv.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That buys a lot of plastic grass.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is not happy with the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed Net Neutrality rules because they come with built-in loopholes, the most egregious being a clause which allows providers to throttle, block or otherwise interfere with traffic that could consist of “the unlawful distribution of copyrighted works.”

The movie and recording industries have been attacking Net Neutrality for months, accusing it of providing a copyright-violating-free-for-all.  The FCC seems all-too-willing to adopt that meme, and write a convenient lobbyist-friendly loophole into Net Neutrality policies that would suggest provider interference with broadband networks is bad… except when this or that special interest redefines it as “good and lawful network management.”

For years, the entertainment industry has used that innocent-sounding phrase — “unlawful distribution of copyrighted works” — to pressure Internet service providers around the world to act as copyright cops — to surveil the Internet for supposed copyright violations, and then censor or punish the accused users.

From the beginning, a central goal of the Net Neutrality movement has been to prevent corporations from interfering with the Internet in this way — so why does the FCC’s version of Net Neutrality specifically allow them to do so?

The EFF is asking consumers to sign an online petition asking the FCC to yank that exception out of their proposed Net Neutrality rules, and let the industry use existing law enforcement methods to protect copyrighted works.  Of all the industries that seem to do just fine zealously efforting to protect its copyright interests, Hollywood and the music industry don’t need additional special protection clauses inserted into broadband policy law.

Law enforcement can use existing laws to chase crime, and most honest Internet Service Providers would tell you they don’t want to police their users.  Allowing this exception is a convenient backdoor to do what some have wanted all along — to throttle or block high volume network traffic like torrents and newsgroups, this time under the guise of taking a bite out of crime.

While directly appealing to the FCC might be more effective, signing the petition at least gives the EFF the ability to draw media and political attention to a worthy endeavor.

Let’s not repeat the same mistakes certain other major policy initiatives have endured this past year, where good intentions were steamrolled by lobbyists into a loophole-ridden, industry-protectionist horror show.

The best way to ensure an open and free Internet is to literally demand exactly that — no exceptions.

Just a quick note for those who dislike getting through the longer pieces here — thanks to a broken collarbone received last Friday, I’ll be writing considerably shorter pieces for awhile as I cope with one arm in a sling.  Thankfully, it appears things should heal on their own without a cast or pins, but physical therapy in about a month will likely be in the cards.  Thanks for being a regular reader and for your understanding.

The Buffalo News ran a commentary piece from Massachusetts for readers in western New York

It is becoming more important than ever to break out Google when you find anti-consumer rhetoric in your local newspaper or online regarding Net Neutrality.  Too often, newspapers, local broadcast media, and online news sources don’t bother to fully inform their readers or viewers about inherent conflicts of interest found in those advocating opposition to Net Neutrality.

Case in point, a commentary in The Buffalo News titled “Policy meant to protect users could stifle innovation.”  The only thing Net Neutrality threatens to stifle is the author’s paycheck.

The writer, Susie Kim Riley, paints a Net Neutral-world of grainy online video, no more “lite” plans for those who only need to use the net to send and receive e-mail, uneven downloads, and bans on video conferencing for small businesses introducing new products.

Shame on you, dear readers, for wanting a free and open Internet without your provider interfering with your service to enhance their bottom line.

Remarkably, this blizzard of bull didn’t just turn up in the Buffalo newspaper.  Riley’s scaremongering also turned up nearly word for word in The Detroit News.  Apparently newspapers are hard-pressed to publish the views of local residents and are now regurgitating mass-mailed opinion pieces written in other states.

Most anti-Net Neutrality drivel shares common themes which we like to call industry talking points.  Their overall theme: the nasty government, without cause, wants to overregulate the Internet to tie the hands of innocent providers who seek better products for their customers.

Stop the Cap! readers have had plenty of experience with helpful providers who bring these appetizers to the table:

• Internet Overcharging schemes that claim “fair pricing” through usage caps and tiered billing, but in fact cost everyone more;
• Throttled broadband speeds, often causing a 90 percent or more reduction in advertised speeds for services targeted by providers;
• Schemes to monetize broadband products and services by providing “enhanced” service to those willing to pay to have their content “enhanced;”
• Exemptions from usage caps and meters for content partners;
• An unwillingness to make appropriate investments in highly profitable broadband networks, instead relying on traffic reduction schemes like caps, allowances, and high pricing to discourage “excess usage.”

Twice is Nice. The Detroit News ran the same guest editorial, nearly word for word, as The Buffalo News

Where Net Neutrality goes unprotected, providers begin rolling out Stifled Broadband.  Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and several other countries endure this today.  The only innovation this brings is new ways to charge consumers more money for worse service, making a handful of barely competitive providers very rich.  But such wealth empires aren’t created by providers alone.  Selling the equipment that fiddles with your Internet connection to throttle speeds, monetize usage, and cut off “abusers” is a growth industry as long as Net Neutrality protection is kept at bay.

Stifle it.

That’s where Riley comes in.  She is founder and chief technology officer of a company called Camiant, which bills itself a leader in “real time policy control.”  Control is right.  Camiant’s products and services are all about controlling your online experience.  Her company sells products like “Multimedia Policy Engines,” which can artificially impede or enhance broadband traffic at the whim of your provider.  Just add their “Fair Usage Management” (FUM) extension and your provider can begin spying on your usage: determining what you are doing with your broadband connection, measuring if you are a heavy user/abuser worthy of punishment, and then injecting the appropriate punishment — throttled broadband service, a bigger bill from usage penalties and fees, or even being kicked offline.  Your provider has a world of arbitrary, easy to configure limits, fees, and penalties at his disposal thanks to FUM.

In short, Camiant’s bread and butter is spread by the cable and telecom industry who buys the company’s products and services.  Is it any surprise Riley is opposed to Net Neutrality?  Pass it and Camiant either needs to develop a new line of products or subsist on selling their schemes abroad, where such protections might not exist.

Of course, newspaper readers don’t have any information about Riley’s very-vested interest in this debate.  Although both papers identify Riley as “founder and chief technology officer of Camiant, a technology firm in Marlborough, Massachusetts,” calling Camiant a technology firm is about as informative as calling Hurricane Katrina a weather event.  Lack of full disclosure does a great disservice to readers of both newspapers.  Instead, how about “Camiant markets and sells products that may be prohibited if Net Neutrality becomes law in the United States.”