[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/PBS Bill Moyers Michael Copps Interview About Net Neutrality 4-23-10.flv[/flv]

Last Friday, Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps appeared on PBS’ Bill Moyers’ Journal.  He discussed the current state of America’s broadband industry, the implications of not having Net Neutrality protections, and how the Internet is transforming public debate and citizen-powered democracy across the country.  (4/23/2010 — 23 minutes)

BILL MOYERS: The industry wrote a letter to the commission and said that advocates of an open Net who are coming to the FCC and asking you to reclassify what you do as telecommunications want to steer the debate, and I’m quoting from the letter, “in a radical new way.” I mean, they’re calling you extremists and they’re calling you radical.

MICHAEL COPPS: Because I want to call telecommunications, “telecommunications” and go back to the openness that has characterized the net since it was first invented in the laboratories of the Department of Defense. That’s not extreme. That’s not radical. That’s called going back to basics. That’s called consumer protection 101.

BILL MOYERS: How threatened is the whole idea of an open Net?

MICHAEL COPPS: Oh, I think very. I think very. I think there are powerful players that are opposed to it. Are in a position to make their influence felt. None of these things are going to come easy. We’ve just been through the health insurance debate. We’ve got the financial debacle. None of this stuff gets solved without taking on taking on a fight. The government doesn’t work that way. You’ve studied this history, I’ve studied this history. It’s painful, it needs movements, it needs grassroots support, it needs the people.

Sometimes you have to wonder who telecom front groups hire to push their agenda.  In the Stop the Cap! e-mail box came a news tip last week that a new study proved beyond doubt that passing Net Neutrality would put up to 1.5 million jobs at risk by the year 2020.  Just as bad, the study warns, broadband investment would plummet as a result, causing an investment retreat worth up to $5 billion dollars.  They thought I should know.

All of this ruinous news results from a government that wants to make sure your Internet Service Provider doesn’t block, impede, or censor the traffic of independent websites that don’t  pay a protection fee to keep their content online and accessible.  What’s that I smell?  The easily recognized scent of plastic grass — more astroturfing from a broadband industry intent on keeping broadband regulation as far away from them as possible.

The Employment and Economic Impacts of Network Neutrality Regulation: An Empirical Analysis, by Dr. Coleman Bazelon — working on behalf of something called “The Brattle Group, Inc.,” is a real page-turner.  I tore right through it myself.

Just reading the background of Dr. Bazelon rang all sorts of warning bells:

• Dr. Bazelon consulted and testified on behalf of clients in numerous telecommunications matters;
• Dr. Bazelon frequently advises regulatory and legislative bodies;
• Dr. Bazelon was a vice president with Analysis Group, an economic and strategy consulting firm.

More ordinary folks use a different, less fancy term to cover all this: lobbyist tool.

The key finding for the report:

New network neutrality regulations proposed by the FCC could slow the growth of the broadband sector, potentially affecting as many as 1.5 million jobs, both union and non-union, by the end of the decade.

So how does Bazelon come to this conclusion?

The academic literature on possible effects of network neutrality regulation does not provide a consensus view on whether such regulations should be expected to help or harm the broadband sector, although several economists have concluded that such regulation would be harmful.

I tore right through Bazelon's report.

Many of those economists were paid by the broadband industry to conclude that in their own “reports.”  Many of Bazelon’s footnotes reference himself, telecommunications company executives, or other connected parties who have a financial interest in opposing Net Neutrality or broadband regulations.

At the heart of Bazelon’s theory is that content-related jobs, those involving the development of the websites you like to visit to read, listen, watch, or download from, cost more money to create than broadband “dumb pipe” jobs.  In other words, if you’re developing iTunes content or a network to stream Netflix movies, your job cost more (and probably pays more) than a line splicer at AT&T who is rolling out 3 Mbps DSL service in Rolla, Missouri.

So, if we penalize content developers with Internet Overcharging schemes or speed throttles that discourage your use of iTunes or Netflix, AT&T can use the savings from dramatically lower demand and hire more people to wire up communities for basic DSL service.  That’s okay, because it creates new jobs: “to the extent that the absence of network neutrality regulations leads to a transfer of ‘wealth’ (or sector revenues) from the Internet content sector to the broadband sector, such a transfer would be expected to have a positive impact on employment.”

That’s a great deal for you, right?

Net Neutrality doesn’t impede bigger profits for broadband providers – it just insists that they don’t earn those profits parasitically on the back of someone else’s content.  If your cable or phone company owned Netflix, there wouldn’t be an issue.  They would provide a service and earn from it.  But they don’t, and demand a piece of the pie anyway.

By the way, Bazelon’s myopic report completely misses another fundamental fact.  In today’s non-Net Neutral world, large phone companies like Verizon and AT&T have slashed tens of thousands of jobs just fine without pesky Net Neutrality or other broadband regulations getting in the way.  It’s like telling a New Orleans resident standing in four feet of water during Hurricane Katrina that if we don’t do something about the levees next year, the city could be flooded.

The author also states the obvious:

Broadband open access and net neutrality regulations are both regulatory interventions aimed at restricting a broadband network owner’s ability to exercise market power. The first acts at a structural level to eliminate any potential market power in the provision of the good; the second acts at a behavioral level restricting the broadband provider’s ability to benefit from any such market power.

Sounds like a plan to me and millions of other consumers who see the results of the industry’s market power workout routine… in the form of ever-increasing monthly bills.

Bazelon's vision for the Internet's future

Bazelon is even willing to predict some winners and losers with the FCC’s proposed Net Neutrality regulations:

Under the strict network neutrality regime being considered by the FCC, different Internet content might flourish. In particular, some Internet content is less commercial and generates very little revenue. Content that does not generate much economic value may be advantaged by a network neutrality regime. It is worth noting, however, that such content, by not primarily being engaged in the economy, does not significantly impact employment. Larger commercial sites have the potential of doing better or worse under network neutrality regulations. On the one hand, potentially lower costs of access should benefit them; on the other hand, potentially less developed broadband infrastructure could harm their businesses. With some content winning and some content losing, there is no reason to believe that the total amount of content will be more or less (or more or less valued by Internet users) under one regime or the other. Some business models will do well under one regime, others under the other regime.

In other words, in Bazelon’s world, the formerly level playing field where content is king and website value is decided on its merits is replaced with a corporate-controlled broadband network where only the big, well-financed players will get to play.  If you’re CNN or Amazon.com, you’ll have no problem meeting the protection racket prices providers could demand to guarantee your content isn’t blocked or slowed to a crawl.  But if you’re a poor blogger, a new business start-up, or use the web to argue for and against various causes, get to the back of the line (if you are allowed in the line in the first place.)

The Internet gets reincarnated as Prodigy, for those old enough to remember using that online service.

Ultimately, Bazelon believes only big broadband providers can create economic success stories in our online future.  Making them play by certain rules will kill that success, he argues.

Only one problem – when Bazelon gazes up into the sky, he sees AT&T logos everywhere he looks.  That’s because Mobile Future, the group that paid for the study, is yet another creature of AT&T.  To hide the fact this is yet another AT&T front group, several of AT&T’s usual friends also turn up on the membership roster.  Just a few days after calling out LULAC – the League of United Latin American Citizens for selling out the Latino community to AT&T’s agenda, here they are again — joined at AT&T’s hip as a member of Mobile Future.

A selection of other Mobile Future (brought to you by AT&T) members

Asian Business Association – No national website, which already makes this suspicious, but the San Diego chapter admits AT&T is a corporate sponsor.

Asian Women in Business – AT&T underwrote their website.

Bump.com – The company is self-described on Mobile Future’s website as “the world’s largest purpose-formed safety, communication and marketing network. BUMP uses safe and convenient voice recognition and ALPR (automatic license plate recognition) to provide drivers worldwide with a communication platform that promotes safety on the roads and builds a unique global network.”  They should win an award for puffery.  In fact, this “world’s largest” enterprise doesn’t even have a website.  It claims it was founded in 2009, but its Facebook page just showed up April 15th of this year with a handful of photos showing… license plates.  Why license plates?  Because the group’s real aim is to set up a registry of those willing to receive text messages sent by typing in someone’s license plate and quietly linking it to your cell phone.

The Century Council – Public interest group padding.  Ask yourself what a group fighting underage teen drinking and driving built from and run by distilleries has to do with mobile broadband, Net Neutrality, spectrum demand, and wireless phone taxes — the primary issues Mobile Future seeks to address.

Climate Cartoons – The group’s CEO is a Washington, DC lobbyist specializing in fighting telecommunications issues.  Among Arnold Consulting Group’s “accomplishments:” building a “telecommunications coalition that successfully opposed federal and state ‘Net neutrality’ legislation” and a “cable television coalition that successfully opposed federal, state and local efforts to enact open access broadband regulations.”  Need I say more?

Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership – Another LULAC — follows AT&T policy initiatives around like a friendly puppy.  HTTP was busted by Ars Technica when asked whether AT&T had any hand in helping the group draft its opposition to Net Neutrality.  HTTP’s Sylvia Aguilera insisted she initiated the drive to oppose Net Neutrality, but was silent on whether AT&T helped draft the letter opposing it.

That’s only halfway down their so-called “coalition” list.  You get the point.  The only name that truly matters among all of Mobile Future’s members is AT&T because they are the ones spreading the money around to pay for it.  At the same time, if AT&T is writing contribution checks to your public interest group, or hiring your consulting/lobbying firm to represent your agenda, those are two compelling reasons for both to hurry on over to sign up for the cause in this, and other astroturf front groups.

On behalf of Climate Cartoons, which purports to “lure people into earth friendly behavior,” please be sure to give all due respect to this latest industry-backed study from Dr. Bazelon by tossing it into the nearest recycling bin.

Plale

Consumer advocates are celebrating the defeat of telecommunications bills designed to favor AT&T’s corporate interests in Wisconsin.

Assembly Bill 696 and Senate Bill 469 were designed to give AT&T and other telephone companies the option of no longer being classified as telecommunications utilities.

Once that happened, the state Public Service Commission would lose the authority to oversee much of their operations.  In practical terms, it means phone companies could raise their rates at will and never have to justify them by reporting their profits and expenses to the Commission.  Another provision would have eliminated the PSC’s authority to deal with phone service complaints on behalf of consumers and businesses.  But considering the bills would have also eliminated the universal service requirement, AT&T and other phone companies could have simply disconnected land lines in unprofitable areas of the state and left rural Wisconsin with no phone service to complain about.

The legislation was introduced by Senator Jeff Plale in the Senate and Representative Josh Zepnick in the Assembly.  Both men are Democrats serving districts in Milwaukee.

Zepnick

Potentially motivating the legislation were substantial campaign contributions from AT&T.  For Plale, who is the top recipient of telecom contributions among all Democrats across the state, AT&T provided $4,000 and the cable industry donated $6,446 from 2003 through 2009, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Zepnick received $1,400 from cable providers and AT&T during the period.  In total, at least a half million dollars in contributions from the phone and cable companies have been spent on Wisconsin legislators over the past six years.

Zepnick’s legislative maneuvering to push through the bill in the waning days of the state legislative session collided with Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, who pulled the rug out from under AT&T and other telecom interests by referring the bill to the Legislature’s budget committee for review — a black hole from which the bill had no chance of emerging.

That triggered a reaction from Zepnick and his friends in the telecom front group community.

Zepnick told Wisconsin newspapers he wasn’t sure what to make of Decker’s diversion of his legislation, which political observers suggest is nonsense.  At the end of every legislative session, large numbers of orphaned bills are dumped in study committees or never taken up in both bodies.

“If it doesn’t get done, that’s going to be a huge missed opportunity for Wisconsin,” Thad Nation, executive director of AT&T-backed Wired Wisconsin told the Associated Press.  Nation claimed the bill would have traded regulatory authority away in return for more investment in the state by communications providers. “As other states move forward, Wisconsin will be left behind.”

Consumer advocates suggested Nation had it exactly backwards.

“It eliminates the regulations the Public Service Commission has used to ensure affordable and reliable landline telephone service for decades,” said Charlie Higley, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, who told the AP three million landlines still exist in Wisconsin.  That turns back the clock on service standards.

Nation

With AT&T and other providers left to increase rates at a whim, the only thing moving forward, and upwards, would be Wisconsin phone and cable bills.

Not every legislator bought AT&T’s position that less regulation equals more service.

Rep. Gary Hebl (D-Sun Prairie), opposed the legislation from the day it was introduced, suggesting he would push for amendments to ensure the PSC would continue to protect landline phone customers and, for the first time, extend that power to cell phone service.

“If a service provider is not doing their job, consumers should have recourse. That’s one of our jobs as legislators,” he told AP. “We have to be sure that consumers get the service they paid for and it’s properly provided to them.”

As late as last week, AT&T had a dozen lobbyists working the Wisconsin legislature for votes.  Wired Wisconsin, which is actually an extension of corporate lobbying firm Nation Consulting, pushed the idea that Google would bypass Wisconsin for its Think Big With a Gig fiber to the home network if the state didn’t adopt the deregulation bill the firm was promoting.

Ultimately, the proposed legislation passed the Wisconsin Assembly but was never taken up by the state Senate.  Since being shelved for the session, Wired Wisconsin has moved on to re-tweeting Broadband for America pieces bashing Net Neutrality and FCC broadband oversight.  As Stop the Cap! readers know, Broadband for America is the largest telecom Astroturf effort ever, with dozens of members that are funded by Verizon or AT&T or equipment manufacturers whose businesses depend on contracts with large telecom companies.

Reach Out and Touch Someone... With Cash

Stop the Cap! readers Terry and Scott write to let us know it was an Astroturf weekend in the pages of the New York Times‘ ‘Letters to the Editor’ section as two traditional allies in big telecom’s fight against Net Neutrality and broadband regulation blasted the newspaper’s recent pro-FCC regulatory authority editorial.

Mike Wendy, vice president of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a disingenuously-named telephone and cable-backed front group, was first up, proclaiming the bipartisanship of the glorious Telecommunications Act of 1996 which made unregulated broadband’s growth possible:

Over the last five years alone, American companies — incentivized by the absence of Internet regulation — have invested more than half a trillion dollars to build broadband infrastructure. Consequently, this has exploded broadband choice and access, boosting jobs, productivity and commerce, as well as other important societal-civic benefits, for more than 90 percent of America. This growth will continue, fostered by vibrant competition among cable, wireless, wire line and other evolving means.

It is understandable that you ignore the second fact: it reveals an inconvenient truth. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which put Internet services outside of 75-year-old telephone regulations, was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Democratic president, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan manner. The Bush-era regulatory changes, which ensure that Internet services get treated in accord with the law, only followed through on the pro-deregulatory, pro-marketplace intent of the law.

Speaking of inconvenient truths, it took the newspaper’s editors to fully disclose that “the writer is vice president of […] a think tank that takes support from the information technology, telecom, wireless, media, cable and content industries.”  Kudos to the Times for disclosing that — too often such hackery goes unchallenged, without informing readers who is paying for it.

In the case of P&F, it’s all our favorites:

Translation: We don't represent consumers

• AT&T
• Comcast Corporation
• Cox Enterprises
• National Cable & Telecommunications Association
• Time Warner Cable
• T-Mobile
• USTelecom – The Broadband Association
• Verizon Communications

Of course, those big dollar amounts representing industry investments ignores the even bigger profits reaped from those investments, particularly in barely-competitive broadband.  Nobody in the broadband industry is lining up for a bailout, that’s for certain.

As to the group’s assertion that bipartisan bliss made telecom deregulation all worthwhile, the only thing they managed to prove is that both political parties are ready and willing to be suckered into believing the broken promises of lower pricing and better service for their constituents (helped along with a generous campaign contribution to ease any disappointment later on.)

President Clinton, who signed the Act, considers it one of his mistakes after he saw the results.

Just days after the governor of Arizona signed a highly controversial border enforcement measure into law, LULAC labels Net Neutrality opposition its "top news story." Is this a group that represents the real interests of America's Latino community, or that of its backers AT&T and Verizon?

Next up is a letter from Brent A. Wilkes, Executive Director, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).  He doesn’t like Net Neutrality either, and regurgitates familiar industry talking points our readers can recite in their sleep:

We’ve seen more than $200 billion invested in broadband networks — more private investment than anywhere in the world — and the Internet in the United States has been an unquestioned success.

Second, network neutrality regulations are largely a solution in search of a problem. The F.C.C. adopted “Open Internet” principles in 2005. Since then, there have been only a few alleged breaches that were quickly resolved under this framework.

On the other hand, net neutrality regulations could shield the companies that make billions in profits from the Internet — search engines and other providers — from contributing toward the $350 billion in investment broadband upgrades needed to handle bandwidth demands, which double every two years. That would shift these bandwidth costs exclusively — 100 percent — onto consumers and could thereby deter broadband adoption in Latino and other communities.

Net neutrality could also bar broadband providers from managing, in a nondiscriminatory manner, the few bandwidth-hogging applications and services that can consume nearly all of a neighborhood’s bandwidth. If and when critics identify a real problem, Congress should quickly grant the F.C.C. the express authority to fix it.

Now why would a Latino interest group be so ready and willing to carry the industry’s water in the pages of the New York Times?  Whenever AT&T and Verizon have a public policy concern, LULAC is sure to follow.  For years, this group has been a part of more than a few industry-backed astroturf campaigns designed to trick consumers into buying their corporate agenda.  For disadvantaged Latino communities already hard hit with an ever-expanding price tag for telecommunications services, it’s shameful to see a group openly advocating an agenda that extracts more money from consumers’ wallets.

LULAC has received millions in support from General Motors, AT&T and Verizon

LULAC was there as a card-carrying member of both TV4Us and Consumers for Cable Choice, front groups promising consumers in states served by AT&T that statewide video franchises would lower their cable bills.  LULAC was front and center in the cheerleading section.  Only Latino Wisconsins, along with everyone else, got rate increases instead.  Thanks, LULAC!

Telecom analyst Bruce Kushnick tears the lid off:

This “deception … is about playing on America’s caring about the public interest and about minorities getting a fair shake,” Kushnick says . Worse, “these organizations have very deep-pocketed funders with lobbying groups, PR firms and others to get them the loudest ‘volume’ in the media or access to regulators and legislators. They often overwhelm the message of independent consumer groups.”

LULAC was there in states like New Jersey when Verizon was looking for its own statewide franchises.  To not offer them, LULAC suggested, would harm Latino communities across the region.  Actually, for many of them, the fact their cable and phone bills continue to march relentlessly higher actually hurts more.

The group is an equal opportunity sellout.  During discussions about XM Radio and Sirius merging, LULAC was ready with a letter of support for the merger.  Because when you think about pressing concerns for today’s Latino community, dwelling on the merger of two satellite radio services is a real front burner issue.

When Verizon wanted to acquire Alltel, guess what group was there to cheer the deal on:

LULAC supports this merger because the networks of the two companies are largely complementary. That means that when the merger is complete, even more consumers will enjoy the innovations Verizon Wireless plans to bring to market in years to come.

It’s getting hard to find a cause célèbre for AT&T or Verizon where LULAC doesn’t have their back.

But why?

Money, of course.

AT&T and Verizon have both donated millions of dollars over the years to LULAC.  General Motors, which had a direct interest in the outcome of the XM/Sirius merger is a donor as well.

Don’t fall for hackery.  Net Neutrality protects consumer interests and guarantees online freedom, something especially important as the forthcoming immigration reform debate begins anew.  That’s an issue Latinos are concerned with.  Too bad those issues don’t generate multi-million dollar contributions, which might get groups like LULAC to stop advocating against the interests of their own members.

Bachmann

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota), appeared on Sean Hannity’s show last night to go way over the top, telling Fox News viewers the Obama Administration was supporting Net Neutrality as part of an effort to censor the Internet.

Oh sure, that’s all they have left now, is they use pejorative terms, hateful terms, against those who are carrying the message. So whether they’re attacking conservative talk radio, or conservative TV, or whether it’s Internet sites — I mean, let’s face it, what’s the Obama administration doing? They’re advocating Net Neutrality, which is essentially censorship of the Internet.

This is the Obama administration advocating censorship of the Internet. Why? They want to silence the voices that are opposing them.

This isn’t the first time this talking point has been used.  Glenn Beck fancies Net Neutrality in much the same world view, helped along by the likes of astroturfers like Americans for Prosperity’s Phil Kerpen.  Kerpen’s group, among others, receives corporate money to drag down consumer protections that would stop Internet providers from delivering less service to you at an ever-increasing price. If it takes suckering Fox News viewers into believing Net Neutrality is an Obama plot to shut down freedom of speech on the Internet, so be it.

Of course, Bachmann’s tirade is the opposite of reality.  She is either clueless about the concept, or has cynically bought a ticket on the PsychoTalk Express, delivering fear-based, fictional talking points about online freedom.  Net Neutrality preserves freedom of speech on the Internet, even for misinformed folks like Michele Bachmann, in at least two ways:

1. Your Internet Provider cannot shut down your website if they oppose your views;
2. A provider must assure access to your website unencumbered by speed throttles or other impediments they say can be removed… for the right price.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fox News Michele Bachmann Net Neutrality 4-20-10.flv[/flv]

Rep. Michele Bachmann’s views on Net Neutrality were aired on Sean Hannity’s show last night.  (1 minute)