So who is for the ABC Plan?  Primarily phone companies, their business partners, and dollar-a-holler astroturf friends:

American Consumer Institute:  SourceWatch called them a telecom industry-backed astroturf group.  Karl Bode from Broadband Reports discovered “the institute’s website is registered to ‘Stephen Pociask, a telecom consultant and former chief economist for Bell Atlantic [today Verizon].”  The group, claiming to focus “on economic policy issues that affect society as a whole,” spends an inordinate amount of its time on telecommunications hot button issues, especially AT&T and Verizon’s favorites: cable franchise reform and opposition to Net Neutrality.

Anna Marie Kovacs:  Determining what is good for Wall Street is her business, as founder and President of Regulatory Source Associates, LLC. RSA provides investment professionals with analysis of federal and state regulation of the telecom and cable industries.

Dollar-a-holler support?

Consumer Awareness Project: A relatively new entrant, CAP is AT&T’s new darling — a vocal advocate for AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile.  But further digging revealed more: the “group” is actually a project of Washington, D.C. lobbying firm Consumer Policy Solutions, which includes legislative and regulatory advocacy work and implementation of grassroots mobilization.

That is the very definition of interest group-“astroturf.”

Randolph May from the Free State Foundation supports "state's rights," but many of them want no part of a plan his group supports.

Free State Foundation: A misnamed conservative, “states rights” group.  Leader Randolph May loves the ABC Plan, despite the fact several individual states are asking the FCC not to impose it on them.

Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership:  Whatever Verizon and AT&T want, HTTP is also for.  The group was embroiled in controversy over its unflinching opposition to Net Neutrality and love for the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile.  Its member groups, including MANA and LULAC, are frequent participants in AT&T’s dollar-a-holler lobbying endeavors.

Robert J. Shapiro: Wrote an article for Huffington Post calling the ABC Plan worth consideration.  Also worth mentioning is the fact he is now chairman of what he calls an “economic advisory firm,” which the rest of the world calls a run-of-the-mill D.C. lobbyist firm — Sonecon.  It comes as no surprise AT&T is a client.  In his spare time, Shapiro also writes reports advocating Internet Overcharging consumers for their broadband service.

Indiana Exchange Carrier Association: A lobbying group representing rural Indiana telephone companies, primarily owned by TDS Telecom.  It’s hardly a surprise the companies most likely to benefit from the ABC Plan would be on board with their support.

Indiana Telecommunications Association: A group of 40 telephone companies serving the state of Indiana.  For the aforementioned reasons, it’s no surprise ITA supports the ABC Plan.

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation:  Reuters notes this group received financial support from telecommunications companies, so lining up behind a plan those companies favor comes as little surprise.  ITIF also believes usage caps can deter piracy, so they’re willing to extend themselves way out in order to sell the telecom industry’s agenda.

Internet Innovation Alliance:  Another group backed by AT&T, IIA also funds Nemertes Research, the group that regularly predicts Internet brownouts and data tsunamis, which also hands out awards to… AT&T and Verizon.

The Indiana Exchange Carrier Assn. represents the phone companies that will directly benefit from the adoption of the ABC Plan.

Bret Swanson:  He penned a brief note of support on his personal blog.  When not writing that, Swanson’s past work included time at the Discovery Institute, a “research group” that delivers paid, “credentialed” reports to telecommunications company clients who waive them before Congress to support their positions.  Swanson is a “Visiting Fellow” at Arts+Labs/Digital Society, which counted as its “partners” AT&T and Verizon.

Minority Media & Telecom Council: Tries to go out of its way to deny being affiliated or “on the take” of telecom companies, but did have to admit in a blog posting it takes money from big telecom companies for “conference sponsorships.”  Some group members appear frequently at industry panel discussions, and mostly advocate AT&T’s various positions, including strong opposition to reclassify broadband as a utility service.

MMTC convened a Broadband and Social Justice Summit earlier this year that featured a range of speakers bashing Net Neutrality, and the group’s biggest highlighted media advisory on its website as of this date is its support for the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile.  Yet group president David Honig claims he can’t understand why some consumer groups would suspect groups like his of engaging in dollar-a-holler advocacy, telling The Hill, “We’ve seen no examples of reputable organizations that do things because of financial contributions. It’s wrong to suggest such things.”

Mobile Future: Sponsored by AT&T, Mobile Future curiously also includes some of AT&T’s best friends, including the Asian Business Association, LULAC, MANA, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, and the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

Montana Independent Telecommunications Systems: Primarily a group for Montana’s independent telephone companies, who will benefit enormously from the ABC Plan.

What major corporate entity does not belong to this enormous advocacy group?

The National Grange:  A group with a long history advocating for the interests of telephone companies.  Over the years, the National Grange has thrown its view in on Verizon vs. the RIAA, a request for Congress to support industry friendly legislation, a merger between Verizon and NorthPoint Communications, and USF issues.

The Keep USF Fair Coalition was formed in April 2004. Current members include Alliance for Public Technology, Alliance For Retired Americans, American Association Of People With Disabilities, American Corn Growers Association, American Council of the Blind, California Alliance of Retired Americans, Consumer Action, Deafness Research Foundation, Gray Panthers, Latino Issues Forum, League Of United Latin American Citizens, Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition, National Association Of The Deaf, National Consumers League, National Grange, National Hispanic Council on Aging, National Native American Chamber of Commerce, The Seniors Coalition, Utility Consumer Action Network, Virginia Citizen’s Consumer Council and World Institute On Disability. DSL Prime helps explain the membership roster.

Taxpayers Protection Alliance:  One of the tea party groups, TPA opposes higher USF fees on consumers.  The ABC Plan website had to tread carefully linking to this single article favorable to their position.  Somehow, we think it’s unlikely the group will link to the TPA’s louder voice demanding an end to broadband stimulus funding many ABC Plan backers crave.

TechAmerica: Guess who is a member?  AT&T, of course.  So is Verizon.  And CenturyLink.  TechAmerica call themselves “the industry’s largest advocacy organization and is dedicated to helping members’ top and bottom lines.”  (Consumers not included.)

Tennessee Telecommunications Association: TTA’s independent phone company members stand to gain plenty if the ABC Plan is enacted, so they are happy to lend their support.

Rep. Terry's two biggest contributors are CenturyLink and Qwest.

Representative Greg Walden (R-Oregon):  His top five contributors are all telecommunications companies, including CenturyLink, Pine Telephone, and Qwest.  He also gets money from AT&T and Verizon.  It’s no surprise he’s a supporter: “We are encouraged by the growing consensus among stakeholders as developed in the ‘America’s Broadband Connectivity Plan’ filed with the Federal Communications Commission today, and we hope that consensus will continue to grow.”

Representative Lee Terry (R-Nebraska): He co-signed Rep. Walden’s statement.  Rep. Terry’s two biggest contributors are Qwest and CenturyLink.  Now that CenturyLink owns Qwest, it’s two-campaign-contributions-in-one.  And yes, he gets a check from AT&T, too.

Representative Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana): “Today’s filing of the ‘America’s Broadband Connectivity Plan’ is welcomed input on the intercarrier compensation and Universal Service Fund reform front,” Scalise said.  Now Scalise is ready to welcome this year’s campaign contribution from AT&T, which he has not yet reportedly received.  In 2008, Scalise received $13,250.  In 2010, $10,000.  This cycle, so far he has only been able to count on Verizon, which threw $2,500 his way.  Scalise voted earlier this year to overturn the FCC’s authority to enact Net Neutrality.

USTelecom Association: The only news here would be if USTA opposed the ABC Plan.  Included on USTA’s board of directors are company officials from: Frontier Communications, AT&T, CenturyLink/Qwest, Windstream, FairPoint Communications, and Verizon.  That’s everyone.

Wisconsin State Telecommunications Association:  Their active members, including Frontier Communications, are all telephone companies inside Wisconsin that will directly benefit if the ABC Plan is enacted.

Five years ago, municipal Wi-Fi projects were enjoying a small boom.  The concept of providing low-cost or free Internet access seemed like a winner because it could provide service to those who could not afford traditional broadband, would stimulate economic development downtown, and possibly attract business as shoppers stopped in cafes or stores to use their wireless devices.  In some communities, just the spectacle of a city-wide high technology wireless network delivered worthwhile bragging rights that adjacent communities didn’t have.

For most city or town officials pondering investment in a Wi-Fi network, the idea germinates from a perceived lack of service from private providers.  If private companies were delivering the service, few communities would spend the time, effort, and money duplicating it.

In the community of Marshalltown, public Wi-Fi in 2005 was a service only found in a small selection of stores and cafes in the central business district.  The Marshalltown Economic Development Impact Committee sought to change that, promoting a plan to construct a free-to-use Wi-Fi network covering a 20-block radius centered on the Marshall County Courthouse.  The community of 27,000 got a three month trial of the downtown Wi-Fi network in 1995, with the city and county sharing 50 percent of its cost, with the remaining 50 percent paid for by private donations.

Mediacom, the cable company serving Marshalltown, was incensed by the notion of a community-owned broadband provider delivering improved (and free) Internet access across the city.  Even worse in their eyes, local government officials were pondering creating a public broadband utility.

Marshalltown (Marshall County), Iowa

It wasn’t long before new, shadowy groups with names like “Project Taxpayer Protection” showed up in town attacking the concept of municipal Internet access.  After a blizzard of brochures and exaggerated claims about “government broadband,” the network became a point of controversy among the locals.

Only later would the community learn the group (whose status as a non-profit was later revoked by the Internet Revenue Service for failure to file timely reports on its funding and activities) was actually funded mostly by Mediacom itself, with the full support of the Iowa Cable Association.

The astroturf campaign against public involvement in Wi-Fi, which could threaten Mediacom’s broadband service profits, was effectively an investment against competition.  It was an effort that paid dividends by late 2005, when the city and Mediacom suddenly announced a new “public-private partnership” to administer and expand the Wi-Fi network.  There were a few important changes, however:

1. Mediacom’s concept of “free” was markedly different than the designers’ original vision.  The cable company had other ideas, placing restrictions on how much “free use” was allowed;
2. Customers who used the newly-announced “free service” got it at speeds not much better than dial-up and definitely slower than 3G;
3. Residential Mediacom broadband customers could get unlimited time on the formerly-free network, if they paid $19.95 a month for 256kbps access;
4. To make the network seem business-friendly, business customers were told they could get up to 10Mbps service for $59.95 a month.

The goal of the partnership, according to Mike Miller, chairman of the Marshalltown Economic Development Impact Committee, was to see low-cost broadband Internet access citywide by the end of 2006.

Oh, and Mediacom insisted on something else: no more talk of a city-created municipal telecommunications provider, at least for a year anyway.

“We commend you on the foresight and vision to do this,” Bill Peard, Mediacom’s government affairs manager, told city officials at the time the deal was announced.

Friends until the community-owned...

Once Mediacom got its hands on the formerly community-owned network, it was the beginning of the end.

Business customers could not get Mediacom to sell them access at the promised price because representatives could not find the offer.

It was much worse for residential users.

Free Wi-Fi access soon became limited to one hour a day, up to 10 hours per month for non-Mediacom customers.  After that, you paid if you wanted more.

City and company officials spent most of their time wrangling over the costs of the service and its future potential.  What city officials were not planning for was the network’s virtual demise at the hands of the cable company.

...free Wi-Fi network is at an end.

Today, free access is a distant memory, as Mediacom pulled the plug claiming there was “limited interest.”

Effectively, Mediacom’s idea of a public-private partnership was the systematic decommissioning of a community’s public Internet alternative, all to protect its own broadband business.

That’s a lesson of caution for any community seeking to team up with private broadband providers.  Marshalltown allowed that partnership to first and foremost serve Mediacom’s business interests, not the public.  Now that network is effectively gone and largely-forgotten.

That suits Mediacom just fine.

Ford, Jr.: Making his former public service pay-off with dollar-a-holler advocacy on behalf of Big Telecom.

Former U.S. Senator John Sununu and former U.S. Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., share several things in common:

1. Voters tossed them out of their elected offices (or refused to elect them to higher ones) for poorly representing their interests;
2. Both are honorary co-chairs of Broadband for America, the country’s largest Big Telecom-industry-funded astroturf effort;
3. They don’t understand the concept of content provider traffic-hosting, and the traffic expenses they already pay.

Both jointly penned a letter in the San Jose Mercury News accusing Netflix of enjoying undeserved streaming profits, “subsidized” by large cable and phone companies that deliver broadband Internet service to paying customers:

Netflix’s current pricing model allows unlimited downloads for $7.99 per month. Netflix saves, with every download, approximately 40 cents that would otherwise be paid to the U.S. Postal Service. If the average customer downloads 10 movies and TV shows a month, Netflix will save $4 a month for each of its 23 million customers.

Obviously these massive transmissions over the Internet are not really free. Someone is paying for them. That “someone” is the millions of broadband subscribers, whether or not they are Netflix customers.

How is that fair?

Netflix argues that the marginal cost to the network providers of streaming a half-hour TV show to a residential customer is “one penny.” This ignores the hundreds of billions of dollars in sunken network investments needed to create that one-penny marginal cost efficiency at the customer’s end.

[…] It hardly seems fair to make users of these services pay more in order to subsidize Netflix’s costs of delivering their videos online.

This call for a fairer pricing model and a more realistic long-term investment strategy has bipartisan support. In 2010, the FCC said government policy should not discourage “broadband providers from asking subscribers who use the network less to pay less, and subscribers who use the network more to pay more.”

Neither former elected official comes to the debate with any direct experience as a telecommunications specialist, but since when does that matter.  They know how to deliver talking points-on-demand.

Sununu: New Netflix Math

Netflix, like every content producer on the Internet, pays hosting and content delivery fees to place their content online.  Netflix hires a content delivery network to regionally distribute its video streaming to ensure the best, and most efficient route to ensure an uninterrupted viewing experience.  While Netflix’s incremental costs may seem low, they still amount to millions of dollars annually in transport costs.  And the online video streamer already pays extra additional fees to some of the largest broadband providers in the country, including Comcast.

The other factor Ford and Sununu ignore is the bill at the other end — the inflated cost for broadband service consumers already pay.  For $40+ per month, consumers pay for service precisely to obtain the content of their choosing, and millions choose Netflix.  That monthly broadband fee, far in excess of the actual cost to provide the service, more than compensates providers for the “network investments” that are now declining at a rapid rate, even as broadband bills keep rising.

No doubt part of your broadband bill goes to pay for industry astroturf operations like Broadband for America, which doesn’t represent a single consumer, even though you are paying for it.  Of course, the marginal cost to hire industry lobbyists and their former legislative friends who today represent their interests (not yours), is pretty low on a per subscriber basis.  It hardly seems fair to us that subscribers should be footing the bill for groups like Broadband for America, who regularly advocate against consumers’ best interests.

If providers are looking for more money to improve their networks, perhaps they can start by cutting off Broadband for America, an industry mouthpiece that cannot even get its core arguments anywhere near actual facts.

The Federal Communications Commission today raised the hurdle for AT&T when it told the wireless company it would consider its proposed acquisition of wireless spectrum from Qualcomm in concert with its application to acquire T-Mobile USA.

The FCC wrote both AT&T and Qualcomm regarding the ongoing review of both transactions:

“The Commission’s ongoing review has confirmed that the proposed transactions raise a number of related issues, including, but not limited to, questions regarding AT&T’s aggregation of spectrum throughout the nation, particularly in overlapping areas. As a result, we have concluded that the best way to determine whether either or both of the proposed transactions serve the public interest is to consider them in a coordinated manner at this time.”

AT&T Donates $9,000 to the United Way of Northwest Florida, which promptly returns the favor with a nice letter to the FCC supporting the telecom company's agenda.

At issue is whether AT&T is warehousing wireless spectrum it actually has little intention to use and whether or not AT&T is being honest when it suggests it needs to acquire T-Mobile USA to expand the number of frequencies open for its growing wireless network.

Critics of the merger claim AT&T has plenty of unused spectrum available to deliver service, particularly in the rural areas AT&T claims T-Mobile can help it serve.  T-Mobile is not well-known for its service in smaller communities and rural areas, preferring to rely on roaming agreements to achieve national coverage.  With its proposed acquisition of valuable spectrum in the 700MHz range from Qualcomm, excellent for penetrating buildings and delivering reliable service, the FCC may be wondering if the proposed merger with T-Mobile is necessary at all.

Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge doesn’t think so.

“We are pleased that the Commission has decided to consider AT&T’s purchase of Qualcomm spectrum in the context of AT&T’s takeover of T-Mobile.  It doesn’t matter whether both transactions are in the same docket; the fact that the Bureau will consider them together in any manner is a strong statement,” Sohn said.

“This April, several public interest groups, Consumers Union, Free Press, the Media Access Project, Public Knowledge, and the New America Foundation, asked for the Commission to take that action because we said that both deals together would ‘further empower an already dominant wireless carrier to leverage its control over devices, backhaul, and consumers in ways that stifle competition,” Sohn added.  “We look forward to working with the Commission on these issues which are so vital to the economy of this country.”

Companies that have acquired wireless spectrum at government auctions have not always put those frequencies to use.  At least one firm warehoused spectrum as an investment tool, earning proceeds reselling it to other providers.  Others have simply squatted on their spectrum, sometimes to keep it away from would-be competitors.

Of course, considering AT&T is a master of dollar-a-holler astroturf operations and lobbying, it’s only a matter of time before a renewed blizzard of company-ghost-written letters start arriving at the Commission telling them AT&T needs both the Qualcomm spectrum -and- the merger with T-Mobile.

Groups like the NAACP, United Way of Northwest Florida, the National Puerto Rican Coalition, and the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association ought to know, right?

Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Bones for alerting us.

A major scandal in one of the nation’s most important gay civil rights organizations has inadvertently exposed AT&T’s public policy skunkworks — a dollar-a-holler operation to advocate for the company’s merger with T-Mobile, complete with pre-written advocacy letters, traded favors and promises of support from other board members, paid for with big financial contributions.

When it was all over, the president of Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) resigned, his ties to a Republican operative board member connected with AT&T were exposed, and the progressive gay and lesbian media outed the whole sordid affair — painting one of the clearest pictures yet of how civil rights groups get into the unenviable position of trading their good name for a piece of big business action.

As Stop the Cap! has reported for nearly three years now, there is a cottage industry in the non-profit sector collecting favors and contributions in return for letters on organization letterhead supporting the public policy agendas of their corporate sponsors.  Honest non-profit groups won’t engage on issues that have little or no connection to their mission statements, but other groups have relaxed those standards to meet fundraising goals or to deal with internal board politics.

The latter appears to be the most prominent reason for GLAAD’s poorly managed entry into the debate on Net Neutrality and AT&T’s merger targets — the first time the group has ever spoken up about a corporate merger.  Because so many in the gay, lesbian, and transgendered community are politically aware, it came as quite a shock when GLAAD suddenly dove into two issues most assumed were not relevant to the group’s mission:

GLAAD Net Neutrality Intrigue: On January 4, 2010, GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios signed a letter to the Federal Communications Commission expressing “concern” about the implementation of formal protection of the open Internet through Net Neutrality.  At the time, nothing about Barrios’ letter seemed suspicious.  In fact, it was typical of the type and tone of concern trolling by certain groups that could pay a stiff price if rank and file members ever found out.  But several members did and raised hell with GLAAD’s leadership over the issue.  Barrios evidently panicked, quickly sending a follow-up letter to the FCC claiming his signature was forged and begging the ‘fake’ submission be withdrawn.  Ironically, he added the views in the original letter, unclear as they were, did not represent GLAAD’s position on Net Neutrality, whatever it was.

GLAAD Loves AT&T and T-Mobile’s Merger: On May 31st, Barrios joined the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce in penning a joint letter advocating the merger because, apparently, gay people love 4G, artistic use of the Internet, and telemedicine.  Gay groups immediately pounced, some describing the letter bizarre, others potentially offensive.  The second letter ignited an all-out firestorm against GLAAD’s leadership, particularly considering AT&T has donated profusely to GLAAD over the years, and gay people have no more love towards AT&T and its business agenda than anyone else.

Signorile

Head scratching over why GLAAD was obsessed with delivering a helping hand to AT&T was soon followed by detailed investigations which began to uncover the important underlying facts.

One pivotal moment came from Michelangelo Signorile, a long-time gay activist and radio talk show host, who interviewed GLAAD’s former board co-chair, Laurie Perper.  Perper left GLAAD suggesting its board was in turmoil under the leadership of Barrios.  In her words, Barrios’ efforts to shore up his presidency included trading an AT&T advocacy letter for a company-connected board member’s continued support.

Perper also dismissed Barrios’ suggestion that the letter to the FCC about Net Neutrality was forged.  Instead, she claims, Barrios tried to blame it on his administrative assistant, Jeanne Christiano, who he claimed ambitiously sent the letter without his authorization.

Former GLAAD board co-chair Laurie Perper talks with Michelangelo Signorile about the connection between AT&T and GLAAD’s president. June 7, 2011. (11 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Since that interview, Barrios’ has come clean about who wrote the Net Neutrality letter.  According to Barrios, AT&T sent the talking points to include in the letter and he authorized it:

The letter’s origins lay with AT&T; the telecom giant sent Barrios suggested wording for another letter to the FCC. Barrios’ special assistant used the language verbatim to create the letter, signed his name to it, and sent it in.

Barrios recounts that he was at an airport when his assistant called him to go through some items on his agenda. In a hurry to board his plane, when she told him that “they” wanted him to send in the letter to the FCC, Barrios assumed he needed to resend his first letter again. He authorized her to send the letter without any oversight.

[…] “This was from a letter with language from AT&T suggesting that we support this, and at the time, it was not something I had seen,” Barrios said. “When I saw it, we withdrew it to reflect our perspective.”

Barrios: Now updating his resume

Further investigations uncovered AT&T-connected board member Troup Coronado. Many activists were surprised to learn learn Coronado is or was a paid consultant for AT&T and a Republican operative who used to work for Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).  While involved in Congress, Coronado worked to install judges hostile to gay and lesbian rights on the federal bench.  Today, he is a board member overseeing one of the nation’s most important gay and lesbian rights groups.

That revelation went over about as well as one could expect, and within a week, Barrios submitted his resignation, and calls for Coronado to leave are growing louder by the hour.

The intrigue has thrown GLAAD into full scale damage control mode, even as former board members like Perper call the group hopelessly brand tarnished and advocate its disbanding.  It also embarrasses AT&T by further exposing the sock-puppetry operations it runs to build phantom support for its business and policy agenda.

How Former and Current FCC Employees Helped Other Gay Groups (Heart) AT&T

GLAAD is not the only LGBT group in the chorus conducted by AT&T.  The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce is no more friendly to consumer interests than any other Chamber of Commerce, and their participation in fronting for AT&T was to be expected.  But the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force is now repenting for their own involvement in AT&T’s bought and paid for parade:

“The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force submitted a letter to the Federal Communications Commission on Jan. 5, 2010, about rules and regulations regarding net neutrality. The letter was a response to a request by AT&T,” she said. “However, we quickly realized that we had not gone through an appropriate internal process on such policy matters and that the Jan. 5 letter did not accurately reflect our views and was a mistake. As a result, on Jan. 14, the Task Force submitted an additional letter to the FCC clarifying the organization’s position on net neutrality.”

“The Task Force has established a clearer internal review process that applies to any request for sign-on or policy endorsement from any group, organization or corporate partner. We have not issued any additional letters on net neutrality. Additionally the Task Force has declined requests from our corporate partner AT&T for further action regarding this issue and declined requests to write a letter regarding the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile.”

Perhaps even more disturbing, new evidence is emerging that the FCC itself may be encouraging some of these civil rights groups to participate in discussions about controversial industry events.  The Bilerico Project discovered FCC chief Bill Lake meeting with GLAAD to talk specifically about how the group could become involved in public policy debates:

What’s not disclosed, however, is that Robinson, Barrios and board member Anthony Varona met with FCC chief Bill Lake and Deputy Director Bob Radcliffe in mid-May of last year. Varona is a former FCC attorney.

“Rashad, Jarrett and Tony met with the FCC in May 2010 to discuss GLAAD’s involvement in present and future FCC proceedings (including broadband proliferation items, public interest programming initiatives, etc.),” according to Rich Ferraro, GLAAD’s Director of Communications. The group denies that they took a formal position on any matter pending before the FCC at the time.

If true, this could link corporate astroturfing and dollar-a-holler advocacy to FCC insiders currently at the agency, as well as those who used to work there.

A word to the wise: if your non-profit needs cash, ask for contributions from your members.  Don’t sell out your good name for a billion-dollar corporate merger.  The position you protect may turn out to be your own.