Courtesy: CQ Press

Lobbyists for AT&T and Verizon are an integral part of Mitt Romney’s campaign for president, reveals a new report exposing K Street involvement in presidential politics.

“K Street Lines Up for Romney,” produced by CQ’s First Street Intelligence, shows one candidate above all others with an open door policy to money and assistance from some of the nation’s largest corporations: Mitt Romney.

Romney has never been a registered lobbyist, but he seeks advice and contributions from more lobbyists than any of the other candidates, and has a long list of lobbyist supporters, advisers, and contributors.  This select group of Washington insiders is quietly positioning themselves to benefit from a Romney presidency. With their dollars, advice, and endorsements, K Street definitively lined up in support of one candidate – Mitt Romney.

Among those corporations are both AT&T and Verizon, who either employed lobbyists now working directly with the Romney campaign or work with corporate-connected money bundlers, who raise enormous campaign contributions on behalf of the Romney campaign.

“The two biggest telephone companies, Verizon and AT&T, also stand to gain from a President Romney,” according to the report.

For example, money bundlers at Ogilvy, DLA Piper, and Ernst & Young are all directly connected to Verizon Wireless.

AT&T hired Romney Campaign Adviser Lobbyists Ronald Kaufman (working for Dutko) and Vin Weber (Clark & Weinstock).

Some of the reports highlights:

• Ten current and former lobbyists are directly affiliated with the Mitt Romney campaign as advisers and staffers.  These lobbyists have represented 256 clients who paid their firms over $88 million since 2004. (Lobbyist Campaign Officials)
• 16 registered lobbyists are acting as bundlers to Romney’s campaign.  These lobbyists have represented 324 organizations and a combined $196.9 million in lobbying expenses since 2008. (Lobbyist Bundlers)
• In 2011 bundlers and advisers to the Romney campaign represented 174 organizations and $54.7 million in lobbying expenses.
• 332 lobbyists have donated to a current GOP candidate in 2011.  Romney dominates the field, receiving 304 contributions. (Lobbyist Contributors)
• Two lobbying firms are positioned to gain from a Romney presidency: (Scorecard)
  • Dutko employs lobbyists that are Romney advisers, bundlers, and contributors
  • DLA Piper has multiple lobbyists that have contributed heavily to the Romney campaign.

Our good friends at Broadband Reports reported they discovered a new usage meter for Cox Cable customers that implied overlimit fees were on the way for those who exceeded the company’s arbitrary usage caps.

Now Cox Cable’s director of media relations is calling the appearance of the new glitzy usage gauge, and references to “overages” all a ‘big mistake‘:

“Thanks for bringing this to our attention,” Cox Director of Media Relations Todd Smith tells Broadband Reports. “This is an error and the language is being removed from the site. Our policy remains the same, we do not currently charge customers for exceeding bandwidth allowances.”

Cox did not make it clear how exactly the language was included in the meter by accident, and their statement does not preclude the possibility that they’re interested in moving this direction eventually.

Cox's New Meter (Courtesy: Broadband Reports)

Cox Cable customers upset the cable company has a usage meter and caps should first thank them for backing down on charging broadband users overlimit fees for “excessive use.”

After that, it is time to take Cox on and tell them you don’t want your broadband usage metered at all, especially at the prices they are charging for broadband service.

Just last June, Cox Communications President Pat Esser told an audience at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association Cable Show that the industry must keep asking customers what they want and find ways to satisfy those demands.

‘Cable must accept that fact that a robust broadband platform means the ‘industry won’t control everything,’ Esser told fellow cable executives.

Stop the Cap! thinks Esser needs help understanding Cox Cable customers do not want their Internet access limited with caps and additional fees.

You don’t want to check a usage meter and cannot understand why a company that earns incredible profits from broadband that costs less and less to deliver needs to cap your access.

Cable operators don’t unveil new usage meters and mentions of overlimit fees by mistake. It is likely their new usage meter “jumped the gun” and the company temporarily withdrew it.

This is your opportunity to deliver a death blow to Cox Cable’s Internet Overcharging.

Get Involved and Send Cox Executives the Message!

Call Cox Corporate Relations at (888) 566-7751 or e-mail them at [email protected]

Better yet, you can write directly to Cox’s top executive.  We have provided a sample, but you can be most effective writing it in your own words:

Mr. Pat Esser
President, Cox Communications
1400 Lake Hearn Drive
Atlanta, GA 30319

Dear Mr. Esser,

Last June, you told attendees at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association annual meeting that the cable industry needs to keep asking customers what they want and then find ways to satisfy those demands.  As a loyal Cox customer, I am taking advantage of that opportunity to write and express my profound concern Cox Cable has started to limit my Internet usage.  I cannot understand why Cox needs usage caps at a time when broadband revenue is skyrocketing and the costs to deliver the service are actually in decline. There is simply no justification for these limits, particularly after Cox upgraded its network to DOCSIS 3, which supports a considerably larger data pipeline.

Cox and other cable operators are introducing new, faster speeds for customers to earn more revenue.  But with usage caps, there is little incentive to pay more for faster service that remains constrained with a usage limit.  Would you buy a race car you could only drive around the block?

As competition for my telecommunications dollar continues to increase, I am willing to cancel my Cox service over this issue and take my business to another provider.  Some have shown a willingness to waive usage caps in order to win my  business, and I am happy to oblige. I’d prefer to stay with Cox, but not if your company keeps refusing to listen to its customers on this issue.

If you were serious in your remarks last summer in Chicago, then you should follow the lead of companies like Verizon, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable which have all avoided imposing usage limits on customers. Time Warner Cable believes unlimited broadband should always be available to customers. Cox has imposed limits on everyone, and that has to change.

Very truly yours,

// Your signature here

Cities left out of Verizon Communications’ fiber to the home upgrade FiOS are telling the Federal Communications Commission to reject any wireless spectrum swap between the phone company and the nation’s largest cable operators unless Verizon commits to getting the fiber upgrade done in their cities.

Coordinated by the Communications Workers of America, which represents many Verizon workers, elected officials and community groups in Boston, Baltimore, and the upstate New York cities of Albany, Syracuse, and Buffalo collectively blasted the proposed swap as bad news for consumers.  On a city-by-city basis, they each filed comments with the FCC opposing the deal unless the Commission mandates Verizon complete fiber upgrades as a condition for the approval of the spectrum swap.

Buffalo’s argument:

For the past few years, we have watched as Verizon Communications has built its all fiber FiOS network in 10 suburban communities that ring our city. In those communities, we have seen what happens when Time Warner Cable, our local cable monopoly, competes head-on with Verizon’s FiOS to provide video and broadband services. Consumers benefit from competitive choice; small businesses benefit from truly high-speed connections to suppliers and customers; schools and hospitals benefit from education and health-related applications; communications workers benefit from the jobs building, maintaining, and servicing networks; and families and communities benefit from the 21st century jobs and expanded tax base.

But the residents and small business owners in Buffalo have not been able to reap these benefits. To date, Verizon has chosen not to deploy its all-fiber FiOS network to the more densely-populated city of Buffalo. The proposed Verizon Wireless/cable company partnership would cement this digital divide and foreclose the possibility of effective high-speed broadband and video competition in our city. Verizon Wireless is a subsidiary of Verizon Communications. We are deeply concerned that as a result of the new joint marketing agreement, Verizon will no longer have the incentive to invest in an all-fiber network that competes with Verizon Wireless’ new partner, the cable company. Therefore, to promote high-speed broadband investment and video competition, especially in heavily minority and lower-income areas like the city of Buffalo, the FCC should include as a condition for approval of this Transaction a requirement that Verizon continue to invest in and build-out its FiOS network to currently unserved areas that are inside its traditional telephone service area footprint, including the city of Buffalo and the surrounding areas.

Cole

In response, Verizon confirmed it never had any intention of wiring any of those cities for fiber service.  Multichannel News reports:

But a Verizon exec points out that those cities are all areas that were not scheduled to get FiOS, whether or not the cable spectrum deal goes through. As Verizon has pointed out, the company decided back in 2010 that it was going to build out the franchises it had already secured and target those 18 million customers in and around New York City, Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia, rather than spend any more of its shareholders money in a wider buildout. The above cities were not in those franchise areas.

Baltimore City Council member William H. Cole accused Verizon of leaving the city of Baltimore behind in a letter he addressed to the Commission this week:

High-speed, fiber-optic networks are vital for economic competitiveness. Currently, Verizon’s FiOS is the only all fiber-optic commercially-available network for businesses and households. Other advanced industrialized nations have already deployed fiber-optic networks on a large-scale; they recognize that high-speed fiber is the competitive infrastructure of the 21 st century. Much of the suburban areas outside of Baltimore already have FiOS. The City of Baltimore will never get a fiber-optic network if this deal is approved, which concerns me greatly. I am not willing to see Baltimore permanently relegated to the wrong side of the digital divide.

Verizilla

The Communications Workers of America has a new, decidedly low-budget video decrying a spectrum swap between America’s largest cable companies and Verizon Communications that will leave Verizon Wireless stores pitching cable television service from one of Verizon’s cable company competitors.

To the CWA, this is nothing less than the birth of Verizilla, a new monster of a telecommunications company that has capitulated on competing with Big Cable and will instead devour the wireless communications marketplace for itself.  The CWA interest is obvious: many of its employees are responsible for constructing and maintaining Verizon’s now-stalled FiOS fiber to the home network.

From the CWA:

The deal, struck behind the closed doors of America’s corporate boardrooms, poses a threat to consumers and workers. If it goes through, it will be the death knell for competition between cable and telecom companies. Verizon Wireless, Time Warner, Comcast, and other cable companies will become a giant, unregulated quasi-monopoly. Verizon will have no incentive to challenge cable by building FiOS into new areas — meaning less competition, consumer choice, and higher prices for consumers.

Less FiOS also means fewer jobs building, maintaining, servicing, and installing the network. This deal will create a corporate behemoth that will use exclusive quad-play market power to shrink its future workforce.

Worst of all, Verizon Wireless and the cable companies are refusing to come clean about the details of the deal. Even as the FCC and Department of Justice review it, we still don’t know what it means for consumers or workers.

The CWA has so far collected more than 135,000 signatures on its petition opposing the current form of the deal. 

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizilla.flv[/flv]

America, say hello to Verizilla, wreaking reduced investment havoc on Verizon service areas across the northeastern United States.  (2 minutes)

Comcast Monday announced it was exempting its new Xbox streaming video service from the company’s long standing 250GB monthly usage cap, claiming since the network doesn’t exist on the public Internet, there is no reason to cap its usage.

Net Neutrality advocates immediately denounced the cable operator for violating Net Neutrality, giving favorable treatment to its own video service while leaving Netflix, Amazon, and others under its usage cap regime.

Public Knowledge president Gigi Sohn:

“The Xbox 360 provides a number of video services to compete for customer dollars, yet only one service is not counted against the data cap—the one provided by Comcast.” Sohn said. “This is nothing less than a wake-up call to the Commission to show it is serious about protecting the Open Internet.”

Stop the Cap! believes Comcast also inadvertently undercut its prime argument for the company’s 250GB usage cap — that it assures “heavy users” don’t negatively impact the online experience of other customers:

We work hard to manage our network resources effectively and fairly to ensure a high-quality online experience for all of our customers. But XFINITY Internet service runs on a shared network, so every user’s experience is potentially affected by his or her neighbors’ Internet usage.

Our number one priority is to ensure that every customer has a superior Internet service experience. Consistent with that goal, the threshold is intended to protect the online experience of the vast majority of our customers whose Internet speeds could be degraded because one or more of their neighbors engages in consistent high-volume Internet downloads and uploads.

The threshold also addresses potential problems that can be caused by the exceedingly small percentage of subscribers who may engage in very high-volume data consumption (over 250 GB in a calendar month). By applying a very high threshold on monthly consumption, we can help preserve a good online experience for everyone.

Comcast argues around the exemption of the Xbox service by reclassifying it as somehow separate from the public Internet.  The company then tries to claim the Xbox app functions more like an extra set top box, not as a data service.  But, in fact, it –is– a data service delivered over the same cable lines as Comcast’s broadband service, subject to the same “last-mile congestion problem” Comcast dubiously uses as the primary justification for placing limits on customers.

Cable providers who limit broadband use routinely use the “shared network experience” excuse as a justification for usage control measures.  Since cable broadband delivers a fixed amount of bandwidth into individual neighborhoods which everyone shares, a single user or small group of users can theoretically create congestion-related slowdowns during peak usage times.  Cable operators have successfully addressed this problem with upgrades to DOCSIS 3 technology, which supports a considerably larger pipeline unlikely to be congested by a few “heavy users.”

Comcast’s argument the Xbox service doesn’t deserve to be capped because it is delivered over Comcast’s own internal network misses the point.  That content reaches customers over the same infrastructure Comcast uses to reach every customer.  If too many customers access the service at the same time, it is subject to precisely the same congestion-related slowdowns as their broadband service.  Data is data — only the cable company decides whether to treat it equally with its other services or give it special, privileged attention.

Even if Comcast argues the Xbox streaming service exists on its own segregated, exclusive “data channel,” that represents part of a broader data pipeline that could have been dedicated to general Internet use.  The fact that special pipeline is available exclusively for Comcast’s chosen favorites, while keeping usage limits on immediate competitors, is discriminatory.

Comcast customers who have lived under an inflexible 250GB usage limit since 2008 should be wondering why the company can suddenly open unlimited access to some services while refusing to adjust its own usage limits on general broadband service.

Stop the Cap! believes Comcast has forfeit its own justification for usage caps and network management techniques that can slow customer Internet speeds.  We have no problem with the company offering unlimited access to the Xbox streaming service. But the company must treat general Internet access with equal generosity, removing the unjustified and arbitrary usage cap it imposed on customers in 2008.  After all, if the company can find vast, unlimited resources for a service it launched only this year, it should be able to find equal resources for a service it has sold customers (at a remarkable profit) for more than a decade.

Anything less makes us believe Comcast’s usage caps are more about giving some services an unfair advantage — violating the very Net Neutrality guidelines Comcast claimed it would voluntarily honor.

Stop the Cap! strongly believes usage caps are increasingly less about good network management and more about controlling and monetizing the online experience, seeking marketplace advantages and new revenue streams from consumers who already pay some of the world’s highest prices for broadband service.  As we’ve argued since 2008, Internet Overcharging through usage caps and usage based billing is also an end run around Net Neutrality.  The evidence is now apparent for all to see.

[Thanks to our readers Scott and Yannio for sharing developments.]