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

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

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

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

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

We debunk them for your convenience:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facebook and Twitter have officially signed up for the Net Neutrality battle on the side of consumers demanding a free and open Internet.

Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter’s Evan Williams added their signatures to a letter expected to reach Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski this morning. The letter, signed by 24 high profile Internet executives, calls on the FCC to continue efforts to “begin a process to adopt rules that preserve an open Internet.”

Both companies have not been major players in the political debate surrounding Net Neutrality until now.

The correspondence comes after two weeks of sustained attacks on Net Neutrality from several dozen Republicans on Capitol Hill and intense lobbying from telecommunications companies to drop the issue.

One signer, Echostar CEO Charlie Ergen, is no stranger to pro-consumer telecommunications legislation.  Prior to the launch of DISH Network, Ergen sold satellite dish equipment to consumers and was an active participant in the battle to pass the 1992 Cable Act, which mandated fair and open access to cable programming networks making DirecTV and DISH Network possible.  Ergen’s company owns Sling Media, manufacturer of the Slingbox, a device that streams television programming over the Internet for private use.  The Slingbox has been banned from certain wireless mobile networks, a prohibition that would end should Net Neutrality rules take hold.

… Continue Reading

John Boehner (R-Ohio)

Eighteen Republican senators joined twenty House Republicans in a letter writing campaign to get FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to drop Net Neutrality from the agenda at the Federal Communications Commission, calling the policy “counterproductive,” and would create a “chilling effect” on broadband investment in the future.

Many GOP members signing the latest round of letters also took issue with Net Neutrality a few years ago when it was a hot topic in Washington.

After Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s aborted attempt to de-fund FCC enforcement of Net Neutrality regulations, the past month has seen a full frontal assault on Net Neutrality by many Republicans.  Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and Republican Whip Eric Cantor (Virginia) co-authored a letter to President Barack Obama suggesting he intervene to drop Net Neutrality policies and instead focus on the national broadband plan.

Any regulations that would prohibit Internet service providers from managing their networks, they said, would discourage those companies from investing the billions of dollars needed to expand broadband access.

“We believe that network neutrality regulations would actually thwart further broadband investment and availability, and that a well-reasoned broadband plan would confirm our view. So to hastily begin the process of adopting network neutrality rules months before issuing such a plan implies that politics are driving the FCC’s decision-making process.”

Ranking Member of the House Communications, Technology & the Internet Subcommittee, Rep. Chris Stearns of Florida fired off a letter to Genachowski echoing the same sentiment:

Sam Brownback (R-Kansas)

“At first glance, net neutrality regulations may appear reasonable and harmless, but, a deeper examination reveals that net neutrality is neither reasonable nor harmless. These mandates would harm consumers, reduce competition, and discourage new investment and innovation at a time of tremendous technological growth.”

“The FCC bears the responsibility to prove a market failure, especially since its 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2007 decisions on cable modem service, digital subscriber line service, broadband over power line service, and wireless broadband service were predicated on the notion that the broadband market nationwide is competitive and that regulation is unwarranted,” Stearns wrote.

Of course, during the years he cites, the Republicans enjoyed a majority on the Commission that made that finding.

Stearns and his colleagues suggest that the FCC could only intervene if substantial evidence existed the broadband marketplace was collapsing.

The Senate Republicans, led by Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, questioned the need to adopt new regulation, suggesting only two abusive incidents have occurred in the last five years that would have been prohibited by the regulations.

“It appears your decision to create new commission rules is outcome-driven. Your promulgating network neutrality rules seems to emanate from a fear that there may be some problems related to openness in ‘the future.’  Our view is that it is harmful for the commission to impose industry-wide rules based upon speculation about what may occur in the future.”

“Such a major policy shift should be contemplated with only all of the FCC Commissioners involved,” they wrote. “To do it with just one party reduces the confidence the public and Congress has in the proposal.”

Pro Net Neutrality groups had none of it:

Gigi Sohn, Public Knowledge:

It is truly unfortunate that the House Republican leadership has put itself in the position of trying to slow down the greatest economic engine for job creativity and innovation ever created. Under the neutral, non-discriminatory Internet, thousands and thousands of new businesses were created and millions of dollars were invested.

The latest House Republican letter asking for the FCC to slow action on preserving an open, non-discriminatory Internet is simply another attempt at a delaying tactic by those who favor big telecom and cable companies over competition and innovation.

The letter also has fatal flaws, such as when it asserts that Net Neutrality would make investment more difficult, or that Net Neutrality would result in lower speeds and higher prices for consumers. Both of those claims are false. Billions of dollars were invested in the Internet ecosystem, not only by carriers, but by companies doing business on the Internet, and by consumers subscribing to Internet services. That is the investment we seek to expand. There is nothing in banning discrimination on the basis of source, ownership or destination of bits would create lower speeds or raise prices. Those are simply distractions.

Net Neutrality is about big telecom, cable and wireless companies (which are often the same) picking winners and losers on the Internet. It has nothing to do with online services, consumer electronics or applications. The FCC should proceed to guarantee the freedom of the Internet that all consumers and businesses deserve.

Markham Erickson, Open Internet Coalition:

This issue has been under debate since 2005 when the Supreme Court issued its Brand X ruling. The previous Republican-led FCC engaged in ad-hoc enforcement in the Comcast case. To suggest this is a radical policy u-turn is simply incorrect.

The Internet existed for more than 25 years under a neutral regime. During that time, a national data network was built out by telcos and cable providers, despite a neutrality requirement. To suggest that a return to that status quo threatens broadband investment is not borne out by experience. In fact, it is critical to investment that this issue be addressed sooner rather than later — further delay in addressing this core policy issue will harm investment flows into new and innovative technologies.

“

"I think these are radical consumer groups," says Larry Kudlow

CNBC host Larry Kudlow engaged in on-air lovemaking with the wireless phone industry in a shameless segment decrying Net Neutrality.  His guest, Chris Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs at CTIA – The Wireless Association, was strictly in friendly territory as Kudlow tossed him softballs.  It was an industry talking point Blitzkrieg on consumers from start to finish:

Kudlow: Potential government control of the Internet: is Net Neutrality going to limit investment and innovation and even customer service?

Reality: Saying Net Neutrality is “government control” of the Internet is like saying safety inspections are “government control” of the food industry.  Without Net Neutrality, big cable and phone company providers will be the ones controlling the Internet.  Will Net Neutrality really limit investment, or continue the Internet success story that investment and innovation has already produced before providers demanded you pay more.  As for impacting customer service, that’s about as valid as claiming Net Neutrality will cause snakes to hide in your bed.

Guttman-McCabe: It’s a perfect storm of usage.  If we’re forced to deliver every bit all the time you’re going to lead to some form of commoditization of the product.

Reality: Gasp!  We can’t have that!  For those who may miss the meaning, commoditization refers to a perfect storm of competition, with providers generally competing on price because their products are of similar scope and quality.  Providers cannot extract higher pricing in such environments, because consumers won’t pay.  In the wireless industry’s eyes, Net Neutrality forces them to actually deliver the service they promise in their marketing materials.  You, as a consumer, get to choose the applications and services you wish to use and pay accordingly.  The market they want is to closely control and manage the content you use on their networks, blocking or impeding “unauthorized” services that don’t have a relationship with, or approval from, your wireless phone company.  Consumers actually want every bit delivered all the time, and providers are throwing a hissyfit because of it.

Kudlow: If you’re forced to deliver every bit all the time and meet the demands of these radical consumer groups, what happens to the profits of the deliverers?  The profits that are supposed to go into the investments to expand the broadband delivery?

Reality: Radical consumer groups?  Attacking real consumer groups that represent what consumers actually want, while providers stomp their feet when forced to deliver, doesn’t solve “the problem.”  And what of the profits?  That’s a good question Guttman-McCabe isn’t prepared to fully answer.  The enormously profitable broadband industry, in general, earns billions and invests a small percentage of that back into expanding their networks.  As our readers have learned on the wired broadband side, the logical assumption that providers will at least maintain a level percentage of revenue going back into network infrastructure isn’t always the case.  Instead, some providers raise prices and limit service, blaming “increased demand.”  Kudlow could ask providers what percentage of their revenues go into network expansion, and whether that has changed in the last ten years.  Of course he doesn’t.

Kudlow (to Guttman-McCabe): …obviously you’re not from the telephone company or the cable company, what’s your meat in the game here, who are you representing?

Reality: The CTIA has among its members AT&T, Cox, and Verizon.  Guttman-McCabe’s meat is paid for by all three, and many other industry members who belong to the group.  Who does CTIA not represent?  Consumers.

Guttman-McCabe: (Here come the shiny keys of distraction and misinformation, folks) I posit a question.  Are they (Google) allowed to cache their content closer to the customer to provide a better service under these Net Neutrality rules?

What about this pen -- will it be allowed under the new Net Neutrality rules?

Reality: Yes!  Having redundant and strategically placed content delivery servers is a widespread, industry-accepted practice not harmed by Net Neutrality.  Akamai delivers vast quantities of video content from regionally placed servers.  Cable operators will be able to place servers to deliver TV Everywhere to their customers wherever they like, if they so choose.  Net Neutrality does not compel web providers to run everything from a central server farm.  It would, however, tell broadband providers they cannot identify and artificially slow that content delivery down just because they don’t like it on their networks.  Big difference.

Guttman-McCabe: Is the Amazon Kindle, which is basically a wireless (single purpose) device — is that allowed to exist under the new Net Neutrality rules?  I think these are some of the questions that will come out as the Commission considers these new rules.

Reality: Yes!  Mr. Boots, your cat, will also be allowed to exist under Net Neutrality rules if he happens to jump on your keyboard while you access web pages.  Your wireless picture frame, which receives digital images to display on your bookcase will also be allowed to exist even if it cannot be used to play World of Warcraft.  I’m certain Guttman-McCabe and his friends will concern troll their way through the debate by throwing up lots of non-germane “concerns and questions” that they know have no relationship to the matter at hand.  They are well paid to do so.

Kudlow, of course, doesn’t challenge his guest on any of these issues, because he seems in perfect agreement with the industry position.  The shameless segment wraps up with the ominous notice that Net Neutrality has a long way to go and the CTIA has a “lot of educating to do.”  I’ll bet.

Larry Kudlow is the host of CNBC’s The Kudlow Report (M-F, 7pm/ET).

[flv width=”400″ height=”300″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Kudlow Net Neutrality 2009-09-21.flv[/flv]

Larry Kudlow interviews Chris Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs at CTIA – The Wireless Association on Net Neutrality (9/21/09) (4 minutes)

Verizon Wireless and Google this morning surprised the wireless mobile industry when it went far beyond a much-anticipated agreement between Verizon and Google to market smartphones using Google’s Android operating system, and instead seemed to embrace Net Neutrality for unrestricted use of online services on Verizon Wireless’ network.  Is this a consumer-friendly about face or a strategic effort to take the wind out of the sails pushing for formal adoption of Network Neutrality regulations?

Today’s announcement represents a complete reversal for Verizon Wireless, which announced opposition for wireless Net Neutrality in September.  Tom Tauke, Verizon’s executive vice president of regulatory affairs said then: “We believe that when the FCC reviews the record and looks at the facts, it will be clear that there is no current problem which justifies the risk of imposing a new set of regulations that will limit consumer choices and affect content providers, application developers, device manufacturers and network builders.”

Google and Verizon have been on opposite sides of the Net Neutrality debate for several years now.  The phone company spends millions of dollars lobbying Washington to keep Net Neutrality off its back, in direct opposition to Google’s strong advocacy for the consumer-friendly open network rules.  One might anticipate a joint webcast between the two companies would be reserved in tone at best.

It wasn’t.

In fact, Verizon Wireless CEO Lowell McAdam and Google Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt fell all over themselves praising one another, and attacked Verizon’s nemesis AT&T.

McAdam took a shot at AT&T for the recent controversy over their decision to block Google Voice and other Voice Over IP services from working with AT&T’s wireless network.

“Either you have an open device or not. This will be open,” McAdam said.

Schmidt praised Verizon Wireless’ nationwide mobile broadband network, calling it “by far the best in the United States.”

AT&T understood the implication of the partnership between its biggest rival and the super-sized Google and announced it was reversing its decision to block Voice Over IP applications on its network.

Ralph de la Vega, chief executive of AT&T’s consumer wireless unit, said “the iPhone is an innovative device that dramatically changed the game in wireless when it was introduced just two years ago.  Today’s decision was made after evaluating our customers’ expectations and use of the device compared to dozens of others we offer.”

That’s a remarkable statement coming from a company that has routinely ignored the wishes and expectations of its iPhone customers for less expensive, higher quality, less restrictive service.

AT&T’s reversal was praised by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who is pushing for adoption of Net Neutrality as part of FCC broadband policy.

“When AT&T indicated, in response to the FCC’s inquiry, that it would take another look at permitting VoIP on its 3G network I was encouraged,” Genachowski said. “I commend AT&T’s decision to open its network to VoIP. Opening wireless services to greater consumer choice will drive investment and innovation in the mobile marketplace.”

Have AT&T and Verizon suddenly realized taking a customer-friendly position of Net Neutrality is better for their corporate image?

Perhaps, but one might also consider the reversals to be part of a strategic effort to demonstrate a lack of need for Net Neutrality rules in a ‘remarkably open and free competitive wireless marketplace.’  Expect to see that line or something akin to it coming from the anti-Net Neutrality lobbying campaign within hours of today’s events.

AT&T has also spent millions on lobbying efforts in Washington to keep Net Neutrality and other telecommunications legislation at bay.  The prospect of a sudden role reversal for two of the biggest spenders on influencing public policy would be remarkable, if it actually happened for consumers’ sake.

Verizon Wireless & Google Joint Webcast — October 6, 2009 (18 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.