NoNetBrutality characterizes itself as a "grassroots campaign," but new evidence suggests it's actually just another telecom industry-backed astroturf group pretending to represent consumer interests.

On April 12th, a new voice joined the opposition to Net Neutrality reforms.  That was the date someone registered the domain name NoNetBrutality.com.  Just a few short days later, the group launched a basic website with a mission:

NoNetBrutality.com is a grassroots campaign with a triple mission. It seeks:

(1) to raise public awareness for the imminent threat of government take-over of the internet,
(2) to bring all net neutrality opponents together under one common banner,
(3) to petition the FCC not to go ahead with its attempts to regulate the internet.

NoNetBrutality.com was initiated by six liberty-minded activists from six different countries who fear that the current attempts of the U.S. government to restrict access to the internet might soon be followed by other governments if we don’t fight these flawed and dangerous ideas now – before they take root elsewhere.

The NoNetBrutality.com campaign was created by Kristin McMurray (United States), Yolanda Talavera (Nicaragua), Vincent De Roeck (Belgium), David MacLean (Canada), Huafang Li (China) and Aykhan Nasibli (Azerbaidjan), and formally launched in Washington D.C. on April 14th, 2010.

The group’s talking points about Net Neutrality are eerily in lockstep with those distributed by large phone and cable interests who oppose net freedom:

Net neutrality will take away incentives to invest and innovate – that means the internet will stop improving. Do you really want an internet czar to run the worldwide web and bureaucrats in charge of cyberspace?

Net neutrality will literally put the internet in “neutral.” Demand for Youtube, Bittorrent and streaming will grow, but who will pay for additional bandwidth if they aren’t allowed to charge for it anymore? Less options and less freedom for the consumers will be the ultimate consequence of these flawed ideas.

The FCC and others aim to regulate the internet in the same way as they control the television… There’s the real censorship! What will be the next step? Once the government has the mechanism in place to restrict internet access and to set prices, it is only a tiny step towards content control and taxes on internet use.

Everybody agrees that the internet is a resounding free market success story. If it isn’t broken, why fix it?

You know what that means — that “grassroots campaign” is in reality yet another corporate-backed astroturf campaign desperately trying to hide its true backer — the telecommunications industry.

Here’s what NoNetBrutality left out of its “facts”:

1. YouTube is owned by Google, which is a strong believer in Net Neutrality.
2. No online service has suffered more at the hands of Internet Service Providers’ throttles than Bittorrent.  Net Neutrality would ban those throttles.
3. The group ignores the multi-billion dollars in profit the broadband industry earns today from Internet service that is increasing in price at the same time costs to provide it are rapidly falling.
4. The FCC proposes no content controls for broadband — only consumer protections to prohibit providers from manipulating broadband traffic for money.
5. Everyone does not agree that the Internet is a “resounding free market success story.”  In fact, the United States has lost its former lead on Internet speed and adoption, and today is still dropping.  We now have worse service than many Asian and East European countries, and providers are trying to test new Internet Overcharging schemes t0 limit consumption and increase prices even higher.  That’s success?  Only for them.

So who is NoNetBrutality.com and Kristin McMurray, the American creator of the campaign?

McMurray's day job is to develop and run social media campaigns for corporate interests seeking to build support for their public policy agenda

Kristin McMurray is a social media strategist — a hired gun for corporate interests that want social-network-street-cred but don’t exactly know how to create an authentic-looking campaign that fulfills their corporate agenda.

McMurray has a history with corporate-backed conservative think tanks, particularly Americans for Limited Government, a group the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity reports is 99 percent funded by three unnamed sources.  The group has routinely denied requests to identify where their backing comes from.  She also was hired to run a campaign for a climate change denial group.

McMurray tracks her site visitors carefully with Alterian’s SM2, a social media monitoring and analysis solution designed for PR and Marketing professionals. Alterian SM2 “helps you track conversations, review positive/negative sentiment for your brand, clients, competitors and partners across social media channels such as blogs, wikis, micro-blogs, social networks, video/photo sharing sites and real-time alerts.”

Grassroots this isn’t.

Accidental Evidence: The Consequences of An Exposed PowerPoint Presentation

Someone left their PowerPoint slides laying around for anyone to pick up and review.  That turned out to be about as foolish as the guy who left his field test version of Apple’s newest iPhone in a bar.

Now the truth can be told.

Think Progress managed to obtain a copy of the presentation, and it says quite a bit about just how much grassroots are actually growing at NoNetBrutality.com.  Let’s put it this way, if you were allergic to actual grass, you’d have no problems at all rolling around in NoNetBrutality’s astroturf.

It turns out NoNetBrutality is the creature of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation and Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, itself heavily backed by corporate interests.

And you thought it was “six liberty-minded activists from six different countries.”  Not so much.

Atlas, which counts among its proud moments a corporate strategy to protect Big Tobacco, helps corporations coordinate their front group strategies.  Norquist takes corporate agendas and spins them into grass roots efforts in return for money.  He was caught up in the Jack Abramoff scandal when the disgraced lobbyist promised one of Norquist’s front groups $50,000 in exchange for “grassroots” support.

Of course, you aren’t supposed to know any of this.  Groups like NoNetBrutality are designed to hide their true ties and claim they are run by ordinary concerned citizens making their individual voices heard.  Too bad that PowerPoint presentation blew the lid off by telling a much different story.

One of the PowerPoint slides that wasn't supposed to become public knowledge

Net Neutrality is like what China does: “Putting policemen on every corner, on the street or on the Internet.” — Grover Norquist

Norquist’s bizarre interpretation of Net Neutrality shines through in NoNetBrutality’s own campaign.  On one of the PowerPoint slides, NoNetBrutality even cooks up a Chinese blog to underline Norquist’s world view that Net Neutrality can be compared with Chinese government censorship.

Every astroturf group has a target audience.  NoNetBrutality is no different:

Target Groups

• Libertarian like minded Internet users and video gamers
• Fiscal and Social Conservative Activists, Campaigners and Think Tanks
• Internet Service Providers and Communications companies
• Policy makers (Legislators, Regulators, Public officials)

For groups like NoNetBrutality, getting corporate and conservative support means being a cog in the wheel at Grover’s infamous Wednesday strategy sessions.  One of the PowerPoint slides calls attention to just how important these meetings are in the effort to coordinate opposition to consumer-friendly broadband reform.

Now that the cat is out of the bag, outraged consumers have invaded the group’s primary social media outlets.  Their Facebook page is now loaded with comments from those upset about the fact the entire effort is little more than another bought-and-paid-for deception effort from the telecom industry.  Twitter is now used more to expose the group than to promote it.

The ironic part is that the very group that seems so alarmed by the prospect of “government censorship of the Internet” has no problems censoring its own Facebook page to remove posts that it determines are “off topic” or “not polite.”

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

[Update Wednesday 3:20pm — This “group” came out of the closet this morning as a “class project” funded by Atlas, and attacked Think Progress for overreaching as to the group’s own importance in the Net Neutrality debate.  You can read my extended thoughts on today’s developments in the Comments section.  In short, I think today’s revelations may actually do even more damage to their credibility than earlier thought.  What does it say about a group of people willing to attend a “school” (and the “school” itself) that actively teaches how to develop and launch highly-deceptive fake grassroots campaigns designed to fool consumers?  Today they are downplaying the entire affair as “funny,” but if you were a visitor to their website, would you be laughing to learn the group isn’t really run by “six liberty-minded activists from six different countries” but rather those budding to learn the craft of sock-puppetry?

I think it’s sad some people have a moral code that says intentional deception in a public policy fight is just fine.  When you lie to your supporters and opponents about who you really are, and then say it’s “funny” when you come clean later,  they are left with little more than to ponder whether you were lying to them then or lying to them now.]

[Looking for more great examples of industry-backed dollar-a-holler front groups opposing Net Neutrality? Just click here and set your scroll wheel on turbo because we’ve compiled some examples you won’t believe!]

Americans for Prosperity's claim that grandma will face a $300 broadband bill will only become reality if Internet providers get away with Internet Overcharging schemes that would triple the price you pay for broadband service.

Americans for Prosperity, the group that harassed residents of Salisbury, North Carolina last year with push polls and recorded phone messages opposing municipal broadband, is renewing its effort to sign up the tea party crowd to oppose Net Neutrality reforms.

Ostensibly representing those favoring “less government,” AFP is actually a corporate front group founded by oil billionaire David Koch but also backed by telecom interests.  The group shills for large phone and cable companies to keep them deregulated, and opposes consumer reforms.  The group’s spokesman on Net Neutrality is Phil Kerpen — a regular on Fox News — appearing on Glenn Beck’s program to nod in agreement to wild claims that Net Neutrality is Maoist.

Now the group has unveiled a new advertisement opposing Net Neutrality and is spending $1.4 million dollars in its first ad buy.  The 30-second ad targets legislators with wild claims about Net Neutrality that don’t pass even the most rudimentary truth tests.

Comparing Net Neutrality with Washington-directed bailouts of banks and the auto industry, the group claims Washington wants to “spend billions to take over the Internet.”  Apparently the Internet is available for purchase on eBay.

In reality, the only group with the deep pockets is this debate is America’s telecommunications companies, who are among the biggest spenders for lobbyists, astroturf campaigns that claim to represent consumer interests, and writing big campaign contribution checks to state and federal elected legislators.

Establishing Net Neutrality protections doesn’t cost billions.  Fighting against establishing Net Neutrality might.

In fact, the biggest expense the Federal Communications Commission faces in its efforts to adopt Net Neutrality reforms will come from legal expenses brought about by continuous provider lawsuits.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Americans for Prosperity Dont Regulate the Internet Ad 5-2010.flv[/flv]

Americans for Prosperity’s anti-Net Neutrality advertisement claims Washington is spending “billions” to “take over the Internet.”  (30 seconds)

An amateurish animated video accompanying the ad on AFP’s YouTube channel extends the lies into the ionosphere:

• The video claims the government is preparing to take over the Internet, which is false.
• It implies the majority of Americans oppose Net Neutrality, also false.
• The video suggests that businesses will be prohibited from purchasing faster broadband, because under Net Neutrality, everyone will share the exact same broadband speed, both of which are totally false.
• Grandma, who “only uses the Internet to check e-mail,” will be prohibited from buying cheaper access under Net Neutrality.  More deception.

The video ends with a bleeped expletive.  Real professional.

[flv width=”641″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Americans for Prosperity Animated Anti Net Neutrality Video 5-2010.flv[/flv]

Americans for Prosperity’s animated anti-Net Neutrality video makes wild claims that don’t come close to being h0nest with the viewer. [Warning: Loud Video — Turn Down Volume Before Playing] (1 minute)

Let’s Get Real.

FACT: If anyone is trying to “take over the Internet,” it’s a handful of corporate providers who won’t agree to common sense regulations that guarantee they will not block or impede web traffic.  If they have no intention of engaging in bad behavior, why spend millions of dollars to fight the regulations?

FACT: Americans favor Net Neutrality protections that guarantee net freedom and keep providers from further increasing your broadband bill by monetizing every aspect of the Internet.

FACT: Americans buy broadband based on speed tiers.  Net Neutrality does nothing to change this model.  Any business seeking faster service can continue to acquire it, if they can find a provider to sell it to them.  What Net Neutrality prohibits are Internet Service Providers artificially slowing down your website traffic unless and until you agree to protection payments to take the speed throttles off.

FACT: Most providers sell “Lite” broadband service to those seeking cheaper access or who only need the Internet for basic web browsing or e-mail access.  Some communities even offer basic Wi-Fi access to the Internet for free, and the Obama Administration is proposing to modify the Universal Service Fund to help economically disadvantaged Americans obtain basic web access at a more affordable price.

FACT: The only way a broadband bill is going to achieve the $300 price tag found in this video is if providers are permitted to run roughshod over their customers with Internet Overcharging schemes.  Some earlier proposed broadband “pricing experiments” would effectively triple the price for broadband service Americans pay, but that has nothing to do with Washington.  That can be laid directly at the feet of the same broadband providers who are writing enormous checks to astroturfers like Americans for Prosperity to hoodwink Americans into supporting things directly opposed to their best interests.

Don’t be Americans for Prosperity’s sucker.

WTTG's "Ask Allison" segment answers a question about unwelcome mandatory data plans

Ever wonder why your cell phone bill seems to keep increasing when you renew your contract?

American wireless phone companies have discovered that subjecting an increasing percentage of customers to required data plans can create a revenue bonanza for companies, whether customers use many data services or not.

Many customers are just learning of new, mandatory data plans now required by all four of the country’s major carriers.  Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile now compel customers upgrading to new “smartphones” — designed to be used for accessing online services — to also choose an extra add-on plan to cover their data usage.  In some cases, that can add an additional $30 a month to monthly cell phone bills.

Some Verizon customers have learned about this the hard way when they tried to buy a new phone at the end of their two year contracts.  For those longstanding Verizon customers grandfathered on service plans developed five or more years ago, being forced to switch to one of Verizon’s current plans carries quite the sticker shock, especially for those who only occasionally send text messages or use data features.

The insistence by Verizon that Smartphone owners commit to their $29.99 unlimited data usage add-on plan adds considerably to monthly bills.  Many Verizon customers don’t care about increasing sizes of calling allowances — Verizon customers already enjoy free night and weekend calling and free calls to other Verizon Wireless customers (of which there are many — Verizon is now the nation’s largest wireless provider).

Here is a comparison between two near-equivalent Verizon Wireless calling plans, ones from 2005 and the other currently in effect.  There is a dramatic difference in pricing, particularly for those who would find a 250 text message allowance, and data usage counting against your minutes allowance more than sufficient to meet their needs:

AMERICA’S CHOICE II FAMILYSHARE PLAN (2005)

Plan Details

Promotion details

UNLIMITED N&W MINUTES, UNLIMITED VERIZON-TO-VERIZON CUSTOMER CALLING, MOBILE WEB – WEB USAGE COUNTS AGAINST MINUTE ALLOWANCE

Additional features

250 MESSAGE TEXT PLAN, INCLUDING TEXT AND VIDEO ($5 PER MONTH)

NATIONWIDE FAMILY TALK & TEXT SHAREPLAN (2010)

Plan Details

Promotion details

UNLIMITED N&W MINUTES, UNLIMITED VERIZON-TO-VERIZON CUSTOMER CALLING, UNLIMITED TEXT, PICTURE, AND VIDEO MESSAGING

Additional Features

REQUIRED UNLIMITED DATA PLAN (SMARTPHONE) ($29.99 PER MONTH)

Before taxes, fees, and surcharges, Verizon Wireless customers holding onto their legacy FamilyShare plan from 2005 would pay $65.00 per month for two lines sharing 700 minutes of calling, with one line also getting 250 text, picture, or video messages, and a data plan that ate from your minutes allowance, instead of charging you per megabyte.

Today’s plan costs far more — $129.98 — more than double, for most of the same features.  The only difference is that Verizon Wireless doesn’t presently limit your data usage or messaging on their SharePlan.

No wonder consumers are getting sticker shock when upgrading their phones.  The paradigm shift to a “required data plan” forces customers away from older service plans onto new ones.  The result is a much higher monthly bill.

All this and the same companies that have figured out how to effectively double your cell phone bill in five years are also contemplating taking away the “unlimited” part of the required data plan.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTTG Washington Is It Legal to Require A Phone Data Plan 5-7-10.flv[/flv]

WTTG-TV’s “Ask Allison” feature recently answered a question from a viewer who just discovered the “mandatory data plan” as an unwelcome part of her new phone purchase.  The Washington, D.C. viewer wants to know if that’s legal.  Allison educates viewers in the nation’s capital that isn’t the only trick or trap cell phone companies have in store for you.  Bottom line: maybe you don’t want that new phone after all.  (3 minutes)

Verizon, like AT&T, is seeking to eventually make the printed White Pages telephone directory a thing of the past.

Last Friday, the company appealed to the New York State Public Service Commission to cease automatic delivery of the directory to residents in New York State.  It is the first among 40 phone companies serving New York to do so.

Verizon cites a Gallup study that suggests only 11 percent of households still use the printed White Pages, with the rest going online or using directory assistance to obtain listings.

New York State telecommunications law requires that all phone companies provide a free set of telephone directories to every subscriber in the state.  While phone companies earn millions from Yellow Pages advertising (which is why Verizon is not seeking to stop automatic delivery of those books), they technically lose money on residential listings found in the White Pages.

Verizon claims New York White Pages consume more than 5,000 tons of paper per year and that they are unwanted by many customers.

What the company does not say is that consumers can already request that automatic delivery of telephone directories be stopped.  Few consumers select to opt-out of directory delivery, however.

Verizon, like AT&T, proposes an opt-in system where a copy of the White Pages will only be dropped on New York doorsteps if a subscriber specifically requests one.  It will also be available on a CD-ROM or online.

Verizon is so confident of its forthcoming success with the Commission, it even included pre-written press releases in its filing announcing the imminent demise of the printed listings.

The prospect of the end of the New York White Pages made news in some pages of a different kind — in the New York Times:

In its petition to regulators, Verizon is emphasizing the environmental benefits of the move. Most of the cost savings would be realized by SuperMedia, the publisher of the directories, which once was a division of Verizon but is now a separate company.

Scott W. Klein, the chief executive of SuperMedia, which is based in Dallas, declined to say how many directories his company estimated it would still deliver in New York if distribution was no longer mandatory — or how much it would save. But, he added, “We’re not talking about millions and millions of dollars.”

SuperMedia would continue to print and distribute the real money-maker, the Yellow Pages, which charges businesses that want prominent display, and the business White Pages, which also generate revenue from display advertising, he said. Those directories would include listings for government offices.

Verizon’s proposal reflects technological progress and a new way of thinking in the telecommunications industry, Mr. Klein said.

Not long ago, he said, the industry’s attitude was, “By gosh, we’re going to deliver this book to you whether you want it or not.” Even if the Public Service Commission rejects Verizon’s proposal, New Yorkers who do not want the White Pages can notify the company that they want delivery halted.

“We made a conscious decision to make it easy for people to not get the book,” Mr. Klein said. “We only want to create and provide products that people want to use.”

Of course, the one group that never realizes any savings from an end to telephone book distribution are individual ratepayers.

Verizon has a similar request before telecom regulators in New Jersey.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WICZ Binghamton No More White Pages in New York 5-10-10.flv[/flv]

WICZ-TV News in Binghamton was among several TV newscasts telling viewers across the state that the White Pages may be an endangered species.  (1 minute)

AT&T has discovered marketing gold.  What do you do when you run one of America’s worst-rated mobile networks — the one that drops your calls, doesn’t provide uniform reception and is often woefully overloaded — and don’t want to spend what it takes to upgrade?  How about developing a “Home Cell Tower” device that helps solve AT&T’s problems, but adds to yours by charging you $150 for the privilege of owning one.

AT&T’s 3G MicroCell shouldn’t need to exist.  If AT&T had reliable coverage, nobody would need to own a device that helps their bottom line far more than yours.

The MicroCell is sold to customers who are stuck walking their AT&T mobile phone over to the nearest window in order to get a signal from AT&T.  The unit, manufactured by Cisco, plugs into your home broadband connection and effectively creates a tiny “home cell tower.”  Suddenly, you now have five bars of reception indoors and can make and receive calls and reliably use the data features of your smartphone.  AT&T effectively moves your service off their own congested, weak-signal mobile network,  and routes everything over your Internet connection instead.

AT&T 3G MicroCell

It’s a win-win for AT&T.  They get to charge you a substantial markup for a device that costs far less than $150 to manufacture and reduces the urgency to commit to needed upgrades to solve congestion problems.

But AT&T’s marketing department has also figured out a way to earn an even bigger bonus along the way.

Customers who do not choose a special added-cost AT&T MicroCell add-on plan (a ludicrous $19.99 per month plus a $1.25 monthly bill-padding-“regulatory recovery fee”) will be shocked to discover AT&T deducts minutes from your calling allowance even when using the MicroCell to provide you with service.  It takes a special kind of nerve to charge customers for making and receiving calls that don’t even use the company’s mobile network.  It’s like AT&T setting up a kiosk in front of the nearest Verizon payphone and charging you $1 for the privilege of paying Verizon 25 cents to make a call.  The $20 a month add-on plan doesn’t even cover data usage, which means AT&T charges you for accessing data and text messages sent and received over your own home broadband connection.

The Associated Press reviewed AT&T’s 3G MicroCell and seemed unimpressed.

Despite marketing claims it will deliver more bars in more places within 5,000 square feet, the AP found the MicroCell only managed a less impressive 40 feet. AT&T admits concrete or brick walls can also reduce coverage. For all practical purposes, don’t expect the device to provide much help out in the yard.

AT&T also claims MicroCell users can initiate calls from the MicroCell and have them “seamlessly” transferred to AT&T’s mobile network when they walk out of range.  The AP found more times than not, AT&T simply dropped the call, forcing the customer to start a new call.  Even worse, customers initiating a call on AT&T’s mobile network will find the MicroCell can’t take over when they arrive home, making the primary reason for getting the device irrelevant the moment you walk in the door and risk dropping the call.

The only good news is that introductory promotions can knock down the upfront price.  Customers committing themselves to the $20 MicroCell add-on calling plan qualify for a $100 rebate when purchasing the MicroCell.  If you also sign up for new AT&T DSL or U-verse service when buying the MicroCell, you can get an additional $50 rebate, effectively making the MicroCell free to own.  AT&T broadband customers will also get $10 off the MicroCell add-on calling plan.

There is nothing inherently wrong with offering customers these devices, known in the industry as femtocells, but companies like AT&T should be providing them at-cost and be grateful when customers use them.  Instead, the company treats these customers as nothing more than another profit center, ripping them off with a ludicrously priced add-on calling plan to avoid watching call allowances erode away, even when calls don’t travel over AT&T’s mobile network.

[flv width=”586″ height=”310″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT MicroCell Demo.flv[/flv]

This video covers how AT&T markets their MicroCell device and accompanying add-on plan and also includes a brief tutorial on how the device works.  (4 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/AP ATT’s Home Cell Tower Delivers an Added Cost 5-5-10.flv[/flv]

The Associated Press reviewed the AT&T MicroCell and ultimately wondered why customers had to pay for a device to improve service you already pay to receive.  (2 minutes)

[Updated 2:30pm — Coverage area correction made.]