AT&T Mobility thinks it has a winning strategy when it took away unlimited data plans, forcing new customers to choose high-priced, usage-limited alternatives.  But a new survey from Wall Street research firm Sanford Bernstein found AT&T customers will grab, claw, and scream to keep the peace of mind that comes from having the choice of an unlimited use plan.

Sanford Bernstein’s study found a large number of customers willing to abandon any carrier that takes unlimited data away from them.  About a third of the more than 800 people responding said AT&T’s move toward usage-based billing left them with a bad impression of the wireless carrier.  That’s particularly bad for AT&T, which already scores as America’s lowest-rated wireless company according to Consumer Reports.

AT&T mitigated some of the potential damage by letting existing customers keep their unlimited data plans when they ceased selling the unlimited option this past June.  New customers are forced to choose between two limited-use plans — $15 for 200MB or $25 for 2GB of usage (a tethering option is also available.)  Existing customers will only face that hard choice if or when they change phones, presumably in the next year or two.

Had they not grandfathered in existing customers, Sanford Bernstein’s research suggests a large proportion of customers forced to give up unlimited data would quit AT&T even if it meant buying a new phone and paying a higher bill just to get the unlimited data option back.  When AT&T eventually forces these customers’ hands, Sanford Bernstein predicts trouble.

According to the study, more than 58 percent of the lowest data users said they would dump AT&T overboard and switch to another provider with an unlimited plan. For heavier users, more than two-thirds are prepared to take their business elsewhere.

But even with overwhelming evidence like that, AT&T and some Wall Street analysts think Internet Overcharging schemes do customers a favor.

“Customers generally have strongly negative perceptions about Usage-Based Pricing, and these are often not correlated with self-interest,” Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett said in a research note analyzing the findings of the survey conducted this past summer. “It is fashionable to argue that loyalty to carriers is dead (except perhaps to Verizon Wireless, whose service level is perceived to be markedly higher than that of its competitors). The new conventional wisdom is that carrier loyalty has been replaced with loyalty to the device. But high inclination to switch carriers and phones to maintain an unlimited plan suggest that perhaps the plan itself is more important than either one.”

The Wall Street firm’s research is hardly news to consumers, who have repeatedly expressed loathing contempt for Internet Overcharging schemes like so-called “usage-based billing,” “data caps,” and speed throttles that kick in when carriers decide customers have used the service enough.

Consumers are willing to pay a higher price just knowing they will never face dreaded “bill shock” — a wireless company bill filled with hefty overlimit fees charged for excessive data usage.  They also have no interest in being penalized by arbitrary usage limits that punish offenders with speed throttles that reduce wireless speeds to dial-up or lower.

AT&T was the first major carrier to throw down the gauntlet and force customers into choosing between a “budget plan” that is easy to exceed at just 200MB of usage per month or an inadequate, overpriced 2GB tier that costs just five dollars less than the now-abandoned unlimited use plan.

Wall Street firms like Sanford Bernstein worry their investor clients may be exposed to a revenue massacre when competing carriers like Verizon Wireless, which retains an unlimited plan for now, unveils its own version of the popular Apple iPhone.  The result could be a massive stampede of departing customers headed for top-rated Verizon Wireless, even if it means paying early termination fees.

AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel sees things very differently however, telling CNET News AT&T’s new limited option plans deliver more choice and flexibility for data-hungry users.

Time Warner Cable customers in North Carolina are getting rate hike letters from the cable company that foreshadows what other Time Warner Cable customers around the country can expect in the coming months.

For residents in Charlotte and the Triad region, Time Warner is boosting prices for unbundled customers an average of six percent, which will impact customers not on promotional plans or who are not locked into a “price protection agreement.”

The rate increases particularly target standalone service customers.  Those with the fewest services will pay the biggest increases.  Those who subscribe to cable, phone, and broadband service from the company will suffer the least.

A Time Warner Cable spokesman claimed the company is just passing on the cost of programming.

WXII-TV in Greensboro reported that for many customers already struggling with their bills, they don’t want to hear anything about a price hike.

“I think it’s ridiculous at this time with the economy — it’s hard to make it as it is,” one customer told the station.

“I wish there was a better option out there, but it’s about the only thing you can get,” said another viewer.

Time Warner has been developing pricing models that increasingly push customers towards bundled packages of services.  Standalone broadband service saw dramatic price increases in many areas in 2010, and the company’s most aggressive new customer promotions encourage customers to take all three of its services.

But broadband customers need not expose themselves to inflated broadband prices for standalone service.  Most Time Warner Cable franchises offer Earthlink broadband at comparable speeds at prices as low as $29.95 per month for the first six months.  When the promotion expires, customers can switch back to Road Runner at Time Warner’s promotional price.

Time Warner does face competition in some areas of North Carolina from AT&T U-verse, which offers attractive promotional pricing for new customers.  But the phone company’s broadband speeds come up short after Time Warner boosted speeds across much of the state.  The cable company now delivers Road Runner at speeds of up to 50/5Mbps.  AT&T tops out at 24Mbps, and not in every area.

When a competitor can’t deliver the fastest speeds, they inevitably claim consumers don’t want or care about super-fast broadband.

“We are focused on offering the broadband speeds that our customers need, at a price that they can afford,” said AT&T spokeswoman Gretchen Schultz.

Some North Carolina consumers are watching AT&T’s slower speeds and Time Warner’s price hikes from the sidelines, because they are signed up with municipal competitors.

Residents in Wilson with Greenlight service from the city don’t have to sign a contract to get the best prices and obtain service run and maintained by Wilson-area employees. The provider has embarked on a campaign to remind residents that money spent on the city-owned provider stays in the city.

In Salisbury, Fibrant is making headway against incumbent Time Warner as it works through a waiting list for customers anxious to cut Time Warner’s cable for good.  Fibrant customers are assured they’ll always get the fastest possible service in town on a network capable of delivering up to 1Gbps to businesses -and- residents.

MI-Connection, the rebuilt former Adelphia cable system now owned by a group of local municipalities is managing to keep up with Time Warner with its own top broadband speeds of 20/2Mbps.  The system is comparable to a traditional cable operator and does not provide fiber to the home service.  Its 15,000 customers in Mooresville, Cornelius and Davidson are likely to stay with the system, but it is vulnerable to Time Warner’s bragging rights made possible from DOCSIS 3 upgrades.  Since Time Warner does not provide service in most of MI-Connection’s service area, city officials don’t face an exodus of departing customers.

But that could eventually change.  Some MI-Connection customers have reported to Stop the Cap! they have begun to receive promotional literature from Time Warner Cable for the first time, and there are growing questions whether the cable company may plan to invade some of MI-Connection’s more affluent service areas.  Cable companies generally refuse to compete with each other, but all bets are off when that cable company is owned by a local municipality.

For most North Carolina residents, AT&T will likely be the first wired competitor, with its U-verse system.  To date, U-verse has drawn mixed reviews from North Carolina consumers.  Many appreciate AT&T’s broadband network is currently less congested than Road Runner, and speeds promised are closer to reality on U-verse compared with Road Runner during the early evening.  But some AT&T customers are not thrilled being nickle-and-dimed for HD channels Time Warner bundles with its digital cable service at no additional charge.  And for households with a lot of users, AT&T can run short on bandwidth.

“We have five kids — three now teenagers, and between my husband’s Internet usage and me recording a whole bunch of shows to watch later, we have run into messages on U-verse telling us we are trying to do too much and certain TV sets won’t work until we reduce our usage,” writes Angela.  “AT&T doesn’t tell you that you all share a preset amount of bandwidth which gets divided up and if you use it up, services stop working.”

Angela says when she called AT&T, the company gave her a $15 credit for her inconvenience, and the company claims it is working on ways to eliminate these limits in particularly active households.  For now, the family is sticking with U-verse because the broadband works better in the evenings and she loves the DVR which records more shows at once than Time Warner offers.  Their U-verse new customer promotional offer saves them $35 a month over Time Warner, at least until it expires.

“From reading about Fibrant and Greenlight on your site, my husband still wishes we lived in Salisbury or Wilson because nothing beats fiber, but at least what we have is better than what we used to have,” she adds.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WXII Greensboro TWC Raising Rates 11-16-10.flv[/flv]

WXII-TV in Greensboro reports of Time-Warner Cable’s rate hikes for the Piedmont Triad region of North Carolina.  (2 minutes)

Back in 2002 Vincent and Liza Concepcion walked into a southern California AT&T Mobility store to purchase new cellphones for themselves.  AT&T advertised a buy one, get one “free” offer for cellphones.  What AT&T didn’t say was that the family would end up paying more than $30 in hidden sales taxes for both phones.

More than eight years later, that purchase — and the resulting class action lawsuit it launched — threatens to sweep away important consumer protections by letting corporations ban class action cases and curtail Attorneys General from enforcing state consumer protection laws.

Oral arguments in the case AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court last Tuesday in one of the most important consumer protection cases in decades. At issue is this clause, inserted into the Concepcion’s service contract with AT&T that would disallow the family from participating in a class action lawsuit:

“You and AT&T agree that each may bring claims against the other only in your or its individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class or representative proceeding.”

That clause clashes with several state laws, California’s included, which basically say consumers cannot be compelled to sign away their basic consumer protection rights.  California law also says some contracts can be considered unenforceable ‘if they are built on deception, are too-one sided, or violate broader public policy.’

Hello, AT&T.

Vincent and Liza, through their attorney, argue that bringing an individual lawsuit against AT&T over $30 in sales taxes would be crazy — no lawyer would take the case and no plaintiff would front a retainer well beyond the amount in dispute.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in another class action case, “The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.”

The “class action” concept provides at outlet for aggrieved consumers who can attract legal representation if a company can be sued on behalf of every impacted customer.  For AT&T, that could mean facing not just the Concepcion family, but millions of Californians — each charged sales taxes for phones the company advertised as “free.”

How AT&T’s Case Has Broadened Into a Major Dispute Over Arbitration vs. Class Action Lawsuits

But what began as a legal argument over a “free” phone has broadened into a much larger legal case before the Supreme Court: can consumers be compelled to participate in company dispute settlement schemes and give up their legal right to petition the court system for relief?  Further, what happens when those contract clauses conflict with state consumer protection laws?

Following in the footsteps of the credit card industry, AT&T inserted a clause mandating customers stay away from class action lawsuits.  By telling consumers they are forbidden to participate in such cases, AT&T pushes customers into the murky world of “arbitration” — a system where AT&T picks a private company, with whom it has a financial-business relationship, to “impartially” rule on customer complaints in secret proceedings.  Consumers have to pay their own way to attend arbitration hearings, often held in cities a thousand miles away or more.  They also must agree the decisions are binding and final.

AT&T argues, both directly and through its dollar-a-holler advocates, that class action cases are annoying, expensive, and do not typically deliver substantial benefits to class members.  The wireless carrier argues arbitration of individual cases is much faster and potentially more lucrative to would-be class action members.  Stephen J. Ware, a professor of law at the University of Kansas School of Law argues consumers have often done far better avoiding litigation and entering into arbitration programs.

But consumer advocates claim AT&T’s arbitration rules are stacked against consumers.  Arthur H. Byrant, executive director of Public Justice argues:

First, AT&T’s “agreement” bars its customers from court (except small claims court) and requires them to utilize the company’s mandatory arbitration program. Its rules say that, if a customer completes the process and recovers more than the last written settlement offer AT&T made before the arbitrator was chosen, a $7,500 premium will be paid. Second, the “agreement” bans AT&T’s customers from bringing or participating in class actions against it. Third, the “agreement” provides that, if AT&T’s class action ban is found to violate the law (as 20 states have held contractual class action bans do when they effectively immunize a company from liability), the arbitration clause “blows up” and the class action must proceed in court. Then, when the class action ban is struck down under state law (as AT&T knew it would be), the company springs its wacky trap: It argues that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 (FAA) pre-empts — and invalidates — that state law because (believe it or not) the state law is biased against arbitration.

AT&T’s call for pre-emption suffers from a bad connection. State law is not biased against arbitration. It allows AT&T to resolve disputes in either arbitration or court. Only AT&T’s “agreement” is biased against arbitration. Its “blowup clause” precludes class actions from proceeding in arbitration, but not in court.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Using the scroll bar to the right of the player, move down and click on Attorney Paul Bland’s name and watch him argue forcefully that AT&T’s motives are plain and simple — to allow them to get away with anything they want and not face accountability from the legal system. — “Arbitration is not the Candy Bridge into Rainbow Land.”

Tapping Into Consumer Discontent With Class Action Cases for the Benefit of AT&T

Ask anyone about the merits of most class action settlements and one will often get a response that the lawyers win while consumers lose.  Just this week many owners of HP printers will get word a deal has been reached over a class action case involving printer ink.  The multiple law firms involved will split not more than $2.9 million under the terms of the proposed settlement.  Consumers will get “e-credit” worth $5, $2, or $6 redeemable at HP’s online store, which sells ink cartridges at inflated prices.  In effect, HP has little to grumble about delivering “awards” to consumers that ultimately benefit its own enterprise, the only place those awards can be redeemed.

With settlements like that all too common, it is easy for AT&T’s advocates to tap into consumer discontent with class action lawyers, proclaiming AT&T’s case is actually consumer-friendly because it would cut those money-grabbers out of disputes with the company.

But consumer advocates stress class action cases do more than deliver settlements — they deter bad behavior on the part of would-be wrongdoers, bring corporations to account fiscally when they are forced to settle, and open the door to legal discovery which can uncover patterns of extensive wrongdoing that would otherwise remain secret in arbitration.

But most important of all, class actions impact every customer, not just the handful who navigate arbitration to achieve a confidential settlement.  That can be critically important to stop unfair business practices.

Of course, reform is also desperately needed in the class action system.  Too often, judges approve class action cases that deliver maximum benefits to the law firms that bring them, leaving consumers with peanuts.  Strict limits on legal fees recouped in such cases, perhaps tied to a percentage of total recovery would be a start, as are bans on settlements that don’t provide cash refunds to consumers who choose not to conduct further business with companies that abuse them.  Coupons, low value trinkets, and donations to third party groups (non-profit or otherwise) are insufficient.  Attorneys that selfishly claim most of the proceeds for themselves have only themselves to blame when corporations use that fact against them under so-called “tort reform” proposals.

Some advocates of AT&T’s position also argue that government oversight can provide a more effective system of checks and balances against corporate overreach.  While a noble sentiment, anyone who has watched the revolving door of lobbyists going to work for such agencies, later returning to lucrative jobs with the companies they formerly regulated, knows that is a classic case of the fox overseeing the hen house.  In an era of government “oversight” that missed everything from BP’s safety lapses, salmonella-infected eggs, produce, and meat, tainted pet food ingredients from China, and indecisiveness about telecommunications reform like Net Neutrality — such proposals are not to be treated seriously.

The Supreme Court Decision

While it will be months before the Court rules, most observers suspect consumers will ultimately win the case.  Liberals on the court are skeptical AT&T’s efforts to preempt state consumer protection laws are actually for the benefit of consumers, and some of the most conservative members of the court like Justice Clarence Thomas, big believers in “states’ rights” are likely to find for the Concepcion family.

“Based on what was said during the argument, I predict a 8-1 or 7-2 vote for the consumers and California, with Samuel Alito dissenting and John Roberts a toss up. Thomas, who never speaks at oral argument, will vote for the consumers and state on federalism grounds, as he always does in [arbitration] cases,” writes Lawrence Cunningham, Argument in Class Waiver Case Favors Consumers, States, Concurring Opinions.

“[I]t doesn’t look as though there are too many votes at the high court to do away with the right of consumers to band together to sue the great American manufacturers of fine print,” said Dahlia Lithwick, Can You Hear Them Now? The Supreme Court reads the fine print on your cell phone contract, Slate.

If these two observers are wrong, it will be open season on consumers who will be forced into arbitration agreements that deliver all of the benefits to companies like AT&T.  Under such a scenario, there would be little to dissuade companies from developing new fine print to trick and overcharge consumers.  Few will be willing to buy a ticket to fly halfway across the country to sit for arbitration proceedings over a $20 dispute, especially when the arbitration firm’s income depends on fees paid by the very companies that are accused of wrongdoing.

Programmers trying to play hardball over fees paid by cable, satellite, and phone company providers occasionally get the ball thrown back at them, which is precisely what happened Friday when Scripps-Howard found their popular networks thrown off of AT&T’s U-verse, even though the companies had agreed on financial terms.

At issue — AT&T wants to distribute programming it pays for over new mediums, ranging from video on demand, online viewing, and even wireless watching through smartphone applications.  If programmers want more money, AT&T argues, they’d better also be willing to deal on how that programming gets watched.

When Scripps’ officials demurred Friday morning, AT&T simply pulled the plug on Food TV, HGTV, the Cooking Channel, as well as lesser-watched Great American Country and DIY Networks.

Scripps’ officials hurried out a statement:

“Let me start by saying this impasse is not about money,” said John Lansing, president of Scripps Networks. “We reached an agreement in principle with AT&T U-verse on the distribution fees we would receive for these networks well in advance of last month’s contract deadline.”

“AT&T U-verse demanded unreasonably broad video rights for emerging media where business models have not even been established,” Lansing said. “Accepting their demands would have restrained our ability to deliver our content to our viewers in new and innovative ways.”

Food Network President Brooke Johnson threw a HissyFit, claiming AT&T yanked the channels while the two sides were still at the negotiating table.

As Friday wore on, both sides defended their respective positions.  Scripps’ saw AT&T’s actions as nothing short of a Pearl Harbor sneak attack.  AT&T claimed Scripps was pulling a flim-flam — trying to stick the phone company with an inferior deal that restricted how they can use the basic cable networks, all at prices higher than their cable competitors were paying.

But when Lansing claimed the dispute was not about money, reality was also yanked from the lineup.  When a cable company or programmer tells you it is not about the money, it is all about the money.

Johnson told the Chicago Tribune AT&T was trying to negotiate for broad usage rights of their programming for services that don’t even exist yet.

“They are asking for broad, unlimited distribution on non-linear platforms that go well beyond emerging media technologies. It’s anticipatory and it’s without a business model,” Johnson said.

Such agreements could end up haunting Scripps if a new money-making distribution scheme evolves that AT&T can use -and- get to keep all of the profits.

Cable companies might also be unhappy if AT&T won concessions they themselves don’t have.

Re-purposing video content into on-demand or portable viewing could evolve into a multi-million dollar business, especially if consumers begin deserting cable TV packages that include dozens of unwatched channels.  Cable cord-cutters could end up watching Food TV shows online, and who benefits financially from that is ultimately the issue here.

A weekend without the networks on U-verse was apparently enough for both sides, who pounded out an agreement announced yesterday evening, restoring the networks.

It was all-smiles for both sides:

Brian Shay, senior vice president of AT&T U-verse, said, “It was important to us on behalf of our customers to come to a positive resolution as quickly as possible. We appreciate everyone’s willingness to make that happen, working diligently over the weekend, so the situation wasn’t prolonged, and we thank our customers for their support and patience while we reached a fair deal.”

From Scripps:

“AT&T U-verse customers, we have been overwhelmed by your loyalty and support of HGTV and our other networks – DIY, Food Network, Cooking Channel and GAC. Your voice has been heard and we are very close to getting our networks back on AT&T U-verse.  We hope to have more good news for you soon.”

Terms of the new agreement were not disclosed, but you can be certain it includes a higher price tag for the bouquet of Scripps’ networks that will eventually appear on future AT&T U-verse bills.  But at least the cable networks avoided the fate of the Hallmark Channel, kicked off U-verse Sept. 1st and is still off as of today.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WDAF Kansas City Cable Customers Lose Channels 11-8-10.flv[/flv]

WDAF-TV in Kansas City covers the weekend loss of Food TV and other cable networks on AT&T U-verse over another programming fee dispute.  (2 minutes)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verizon played along:

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

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

The Times documented numerous other examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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