The mouthpiece of Big Telecom.

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation has looked and looked, and just does not see America’s broadband problems aptly described by industry critics including Susan Crawford, David Cay Johnston and Tim Wu. As far as the ITIF is concerned Americans have little to complain about with respect to broadband availability, speeds or pricing.

That finding is part of a new research paper, “The Whole Picture: Where America’s Broadband Networks Really Stand,” authored by Richard Bennett, Luke Stewart, and Robert Atkinson.

The report sniffs at critics complaining about uncompetitive, high-priced service, dismissing them as misguided “holders of a particular ideology or economic doctrine, which is Neo-Keynesian, populist economic thinking in this instance.”

Bennett, Stewart, and Atkinson, who have all penned pro-industry reports for years, prove another economic doctrine: the free market for industry bought-and-paid-for-“research” is alive and well.

The summary finding of the report:

Taking the whole picture into account, this report finds that the United States has made rapid progress in broadband deployment, performance, and price, as well as adoption when measured as computer-owning households who subscribe to broadband. Considering the high cost of operating and upgrading broadband networks in a largely suburban nation, the prices Americans pay for broadband services are reasonable and the performance of our networks is better than in all but a handful of nations that have densely populated urban areas and have used government subsidies to leap-frog several generations of technology ahead of where the market would go on its own in response to changing consumer demands.

Although the report is extensively footnoted to bestow credibility, once a reader begins to check out those footnotes, trouble looms:

1. Some footnotes lead the reader to business or Wall Street media reports, which can favor an industry point of view or extensively quote from executives and insiders;
2. Several certain critical assertions include footnotes that link only to the home page of the source, making it impossible to find the exact source material used;
3. Many footnotes come from earlier articles, position papers, and statements from the authors or others affiliated with the ITIF — hardly independent sources of information.

Bought and paid for research.

ITIF’s report is riddled with customized benchmarks the ITIF appears to have invented itself. Ars Technica caught one in the executive summary and questioned the relevance of measuring broadband adoption among “computer-owning households” at a time when an increasing number of Americans use broadband for video streaming on televisions, use smartphones, or rely on tablets for access.

We also noted the authors making several assertions without facts in evidence to support them. Among them is the unsupported notion that “the high cost of operating and upgrading broadband networks in a largely suburban nation” makes today’s broadband pricing understandable and fair.

In fact, the most significant costs borne by cable operators came during the early years of their initial construction — one, even two decades before broadband over cable was envisioned. When cable Internet service was introduced, it was praised for its relatively inexpensive start-up costs and its ability to deliver ancillary, unregulated revenue for cable operators. Those cable networks over which broadband is delivered have been paid off for years.

The authors avoid the actual financial reports of the largest phone and cable companies in their study, because as public shareholder-owned companies, they are obligated to disclose reality. Those financial reports show a consistent drop in capital expenses and infrastructure investment and a major increase in revenue and profits from broadband service. Cable industry executives have repeatedly asserted the reason they raise broadband prices is not because the costs to run their networks are very high, but rather because “they can.”

From there, Bennett, Stewart, and Atkinson play endless rounds of Statistics Scrabble.

Claim: America enjoys robust competition for broadband.

Phone Company

Fact: The cable industry has declared itself the victor for delivering high-speed broadband in the United States. DSL has long since given up competing on speed, and even AT&T’s hybrid fiber-copper U-verse platform is rapidly losing ground in the broadband speed race. Wireless and satellite plans are almost all slower and routinely cap usage, often to levels of just a few gigabytes per month.

The cable industry also won the right to keep its network to itself, not allowing third-party wholesalers on-demand access to resell broadband over those networks. Phone companies have been able to charge discriminatory wholesale pricing to access their networks, and only for certain types of connections.

Abroad, most networks are open to third parties on non-discriminatory terms. In places like the United Kingdom, customers have their choice of ISPs available over a traditional BT DSL line. In Asia, public subsidies and incentives helped push providers to construct fiber to the premises networks, but those networks are open access, helping spur competition and lower prices.

Domestically Time Warner Cable permits competitors like Earthlink on its network on a voluntary basis, but unsurprisingly Earthlink charges the same or higher prices for service that Time Warner charges once a six month promotion ends. That represents “competition” in name-only.

Claim: Most speed-test-based research rankings on broadband speeds around the world are wrong.

Cable Company

Fact: ITIF at one point makes the unfounded assertion that since many people only test their broadband speed when something seems wrong with their connection, most speed-test-sourced “actual speed” data is not very useful because there often is something wrong with a broadband connection when testing it, resulting in flawed data. This ‘picked out of the sky’ claim is one of the primary arguments ITIF makes about why broadband rankings (produced by those other than themselves) are irrelevant.

ITIF’s press release about its report makes the completely unsubstantiated assertion that “the average network rate of all broadband connections in the United States was 29.6Mbps in the third quarter of 2012; in the same period, we ranked seventh in the world and sixth in the OECD in the percentage of users with performance faster than 10Mbps.”

DSL customers may find a statistic rating America’s broadband speeds as better than one might expect to be less than useful when it only counts broadband connections faster than the average DSL user can buy themselves.

This cherry-picking may help the ITIF’s arguments look more credible, but it does nothing to improve your broadband speeds at home or at work.

Claim: Broadband provider profits average less than 2% annually.

Fact: Another clever statistic (poorly sourced as ‘from the home page of Bloomberg.com’ — check back with us when you find the original article yourself) that fails to tell the whole story.

We aren’t THAT profitable, really.

First, ITIF defines net profits specifically as “simply the difference between revenue and expenses.” But that definition may not account for a range of corporate accounting activities which can diminish net profits but still let the company walk away with high fives from Wall Street. Share buybacks or dividend payouts, acquisitions, costs and expenses from other divisions not related to broadband, etc., can all affect the bottom line and mask the enormous earnings and profit potential of American broadband.

Take Time Warner Cable, which has a 95 percent gross margin selling broadband. Broadband service is just one of three primary services sold by the cable operator. Broadband does not suffer from landline losses in the phone business or from escalating TV programming expenses. Broadband is clearly the most profitable service in Time Warner’s product arsenal because it occupies only a small part of the company’s wired infrastructure. Supplying broadband service also costs Time Warner relatively little money as a percentage of their earnings and has helped offset revenue loss from the television side of the business. Bandwidth costs have also declined year after year. Infrastructure upgrades are more than covered by pricing that has begun to creep up over the last few years. In effect, broadband earnings are covering for other products that are not selling as well.

ITIF’s claim that supplying broadband is costly and that current rates are justified just isn’t true.

Claim: Europe is behind the United States in broadband.

Fact: The one legacy network that both Europeans and Americans share in common is the copper wire basic telephone service. From there, telecommunications service diverged.

North Americans embraced cable television while much of western Europe (especially the UK) preferred direct-to-home satellite service. That difference set the stage for some significant broadband disparity. Cable broadband technology has proved more robust and reliable than DSL service. Phone companies that rely on basic DSL are falling behind in broadband speeds. Investment to bring fiber online is the only way these phone companies can stay competitive with cable broadband. Some countries with particularly decrepit telephone networks, especially those left over from the Communist era in eastern Europe, are being scrapped in favor of fiber to the home service. Many western European countries are incrementally introducing fiber to the cabinet or neighborhood service, which leaves the last mile copper phone wire connection in place.

This is why speeds in many eastern European countries and the Baltic states with full fiber networks are so high. Advanced forms of DSL are more common further west, using technologies like VDSL2+. But DOCSIS 3 cable upgrades (and those to follow) continue to leapfrog over telephone company DSL advancements. Speed disparity is often the result of fewer cable systems in Europe as well as the amount of fiber optics replacing basic telephone service infrastructure.

Despite that, many Europeans pay less, particularly for faster service, than we do. Plus, fiber optic upgrades are within the foreseeable future in many European countries. In the United States, fiber deployments are now crawling or stalled in areas served by AT&T and Verizon. Neither company shows much interest in spending money on further wired upgrades and no competitive pressure is forcing them to, especially as both phone companies increasingly turn attention to their wireless divisions for most of their earnings.

The kind of research produced by the ITIF is tainted as long as they don’t reveal who is paying for these research reports. As Stop the Cap! readers have learned well, following corporate money usually helps expose the real agenda of these so-called “think tanks,” which are created to distort reality and quietly echo the agenda of their paymasters with a veneer of independence and credibility.

The inauguration of President Barack Obama for a second term in the White House is brought to you by generous financial contributions from AT&T, Microsoft, and a handful of big health care and pharmaceutical companies that all do business with the federal government.

AT&T, which donated generously to the Romney campaign, has been making amends with the administration remaining in office by underwriting the lavish festivities, despite earlier promises from the Obama Administration not to accept corporate money for the inauguration.

The telecom giant is among seven corporations that have found their way around federal laws that bar contractors from spending money to influence elections. No law stops them from writing big checks for inaugural events or political conventions (see here, here, here, and here for our earlier reports).

AT&T is among the most powerful special interests in Washington, with more than $14 million spent lobbying Congress and federal agencies like the FCC in just the first nine months of 2012, according to The Center for Responsive Politics’ website, Open Secrets.

AT&T handed out nearly $2 million to political action committees, parties, and secretive independent groups that run campaign ads without disclosing who pays for them. Candidates did not suffer for money either. Direct AT&T contributions totaling $3,297,096 were handed to members and would-be members of Congress, with the company heavily favoring Republicans.

Among those winning AT&T checks valued at $10,000 or more were 65 Republicans and 16 Democrats:

But the Money Party doesn’t end there. At least 49 members of the House and Senate that vote on legislation that directly affects AT&T’s bottom line also happen to be shareholders of the company:

Akin, Todd (R-MO)
Berkley, Shelley (D-NV)
Berman, Howard L (D-CA)
Bingaman, Jeff (D-NM)
Boehner, John (R-OH)
Bonner, Jo (R-AL)
Buchanan, Vernon (R-FL)
Burgess, Michael (R-TX)
Cassidy, Bill (R-LA)
Coats, Dan (R-IN)
Coble, Howard (R-NC)
Coburn, Tom (R-OK)
Cohen, Steve (D-TN)
Cole, Tom (R-OK)
Conaway, Mike (R-TX)
Conrad, Kent (D-ND)
Cooper, Jim (D-TN)
Doggett, Lloyd (D-TX)
Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R-NJ)
Gibbs, Bob (R-OH)
Hagan, Kay R (D-NC)
Hanna, Richard (R-NY)
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R-TX)
Inhofe, James M (R-OK)
Isakson, Johnny (R-GA)
Johnson, Ron (R-WI)
Keating, Bill (D-MA)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
Kingston, Jack (R-GA)
Lance, Leonard (R-NJ)
Marchant, Kenny (R-TX)
McCarthy, Carolyn (D-NY)
McCaskill, Claire (D-MO)
McCaul, Michael (R-TX)
McKinley, David (R-WV)
Perlmutter, Edwin G (D-CO)
Peters, Gary (D-MI)
Renacci, Jim (R-OH)
Rogers, Hal (R-KY)
Sensenbrenner, F James Jr (R-WI)
Sessions, Pete (R-TX)
Smith, Lamar (R-TX)
Tipton, Scott (R-CO)
Upton, Fred (R-MI)
Vitter, David (R-LA)
Webb, James (D-VA)
Welch, Peter (D-VT)
Whitehouse, Sheldon (D-RI)
Whitfield, Ed (R-KY)

AT&T, which Open Secrets deems a “heavy hitter,” also benefits from Washington’s revolving door between public service and private sector lobbying. The group notes at least 63 out of 86 AT&T lobbyists have previously held government jobs, often at the agencies that oversee and regulate the company.

Public Citizen says it is disturbed by revelations companies like AT&T, Microsoft, and various pharmaceutical and health care interests like Centene and Genentech-Roche Pharmaceuticals have been allowed to contribute because all of them are in business with the federal government. AT&T has been awarded more than $101 million in federal contracts this fiscal year. Microsoft, which spent $5.7 million lobbying Washington has earned most of that back with $4.6 million in contracts with the Department of Homeland Security, the White House, and other federal agencies.

Almost none of the companies contacted by USA Today were willing to return calls or comment on the contributions. But Public Citizen did go on the record with the newspaper.

“Such donations are more troubling when they come from companies that have significant ongoing business with the federal government,” said Robert Weissman, the group’s president. “They will expect a very good hearing regarding any concerns, complaints or aspirations they might have.”

Tomorrow is election day in the United States. Stop the Cap! has reviewed both presidential candidates’ positions (or the lack thereof) as well as the past voting records and platforms of members of both major political parties. With this in mind, it is time for our election guide for broadband enthusiasts. Regardless of what candidate you support, please get out and vote!

Neither political party or candidate has been perfect on broadband advocacy or consumer protection.

We’ve been disappointed by the Obama Administration, whose FCC chairman has major problems standing up to large telecom companies and their friends in the Republican-led House of Representatives. Julius Genachowski promised a lot and delivered very little on broadband reform policies that protect both consumers and the open Internet. Both President Obama and Genachowski’s rhetoric simply have not matched the results.

Bitterly disappointing moments included Genachowski’s cave-in on Net Neutrality, leaving watered down net protections challenged in court by some of the same companies that praised Genachowski’s willingness to compromise. Genachowski’s thank you card arrived in the form of a lawsuit. His unwillingness to take the common sense approach of defining broadband as a “telecommunications service” has left Internet policies hanging by a tenuous thread, waiting to be snipped by the first D.C. federal judge with a pair of sharp scissors. But even worse, the FCC chairman’s blinders on usage caps and usage billing have left him unbelievably naive about this pricing scheme. No, Mr. Genachowski, usage pricing is not about innovation, it’s about monetizing broadband usage for even fatter profits at the expense of average consumers already overpaying for Internet access.

Obama

Unfortunately, the alternative choice may be worse. Let’s compare the two parties and their candidates:

The Obama Administration treats broadband comparably to alternative energy. Both deliver promise, but not if we wait for private companies to do all of the heavy lifting. The Obama Administration believes Internet expansion needs government assistance to overcome the current blockade of access for anyone failing to meet private Return On Investment requirements.

While this sober business analysis has kept private providers from upsetting investors with expensive capital investments, it has also allowed millions of Americans to go without service. The “incremental growth” argument advocated by private providers has allowed the United States’ leadership role on broadband to falter. In both Europe and Asia, even small nations now outpace the United States deploying advanced broadband networks which offer far higher capacity, usually at dramatically lower prices. Usually, other nations one-upping the United States is treated like a threat to national security. This time, the argument is that those other countries don’t actually need the broadband networks they have, nor do we.

The Obama Administration bows to the reality that private companies simply will not invest in unprofitable service areas unless the government helps pick up the tab. But those companies also want the government to spend the money with as little oversight over their networks as possible.

That sets up the classic conflict between the two political parties — Democrats who want to see broadband treated like a critically-important utility that deserves some government oversight in its current state and Republicans who want to leave matters entirely in the hands of private providers who they claim know best, and keep the government out of it.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s regular cave-ins for the benefit of Big Telecom brought heavy criticism from us for his “cowardly lion” act.

Just about the only thing the two parties agree on is reforming the Universal Service Fund, which had until recently been directing millions to keeping traditional phone service up and running even as Americans increasingly abandon landlines.

But differences quickly emerge from there.

The Obama Administration believes broadband is increasingly a service every American must be able to access if sought. The Romney-Ryan campaign hasn’t spoken to the issue much beyond the general Republican platform that market forces will resolve virtually any problem when sufficient demand arises.

Republicans almost uniformly vociferously oppose Net Neutrality, believing broadband networks are the sole property of the providers that offer the service. Many Republicans characterize Net Neutrality as a “government takeover” of the Internet and a government policy that would “micromanage broadband” like it was a railroad. Somehow, they seem to have forgotten railroad monopolies used to be a problem for the United States in the early 20th century. Robber barons, anyone?

President Obama pushed for strong Net Neutrality protections for Americans, but his FCC chairman Julius Genachowski caved to the demands of AT&T, Verizon, and the cable industry by managing Net Neutrality with a disappointing “light touch” for those providers. (We’d call it “fondling” ourselves.)

Democrats favor wireless auctions and spectrum expansion, but many favor limits that reserve certain spectrum for emerging competitors and for unlicensed wireless use. Republicans trend towards “winner take all” auctions which probably will favor deep-pocketed incumbents like AT&T and Verizon. The GOP also does not support holding back as much spectrum for unlicensed use.

Republicans have been strongly supporting the deregulation of “special access” service, critical to competitors who need backhaul access to the Internet sold by large phone companies like AT&T. Critics contend the pricing deregulation has allowed a handful of phone companies to lock out competitors, particularly on the wireless side, with extremely high prices for access without any pricing oversight. The FCC under the Obama Administration suspended that deregulation last summer, a clear sign it thinks current pricing is suspect.

Romney

Opponents of usage-based pricing of Internet access have gotten shabby treatment from both parties. Republicans have shown no interest in involving themselves in a debate about the fairness of usage pricing, but neither have many Democrats.

As for publicly-owned broadband networks, sometimes called municipal broadband, the Republican record on the state and federal level is pretty clear — they actively oppose community broadband networks and many have worked with corporate front groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to ban them on the state level. Democrats tend to be more favorable, but not always.

The biggest problem broadband advocates face on the federal and state level is the ongoing pervasive influence of Big Telecom campaign contributions. While politicians uniformly deny that corporate money holds any influence over their voting, the record clearly indicates otherwise. Nothing else explains the signatures from Democrats that received healthy injections of campaign cash from companies like AT&T, and then used the company’s own talking points to oppose Net Neutrality.

But in a story of the lesser of two-evils, we cannot forget AT&T spends even more to promote Republican interests, because often those interests are shared by AT&T:

• AT&T has spent nearly $900,000 on self-identified “tea party” candidates pledged to AT&T’s deregulation policies;
• AT&T gave nearly $2 million to the Republican Governors Association — a key part of their ALEC agenda;
• AT&T gave $100,000 to everyone’s favorite dollar-a-holler Astroturf group — The Heartland Institute, which opposes Net Neutrality and community broadband.

Despite a pledge to run this year’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., without a penny of corporate money, a new filing with the Federal Election Commission reveals Democrats raised millions from AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and several big banks and energy companies.

Convention officials originally promised the convention would be self-sustained without corporate money, but that promise was long gone with last week’s quiet report to the FEC. Millions arrived courtesy of a convention civic committee that openly welcomed corporate cash.

The Los Angeles Times reports New American City, which paid for hospitality and administrative costs, raised $19 million — nearly all from corporations.

Digging deeper into the FEC filings, Stop the Cap! reveals where some of the Democrat’s money came from and where some of it went:

• AT&T spent $175,475 on “delegate bags” decked out with AT&T’s logo and $123,087 on “catering for suites.” That was in addition to a straight $1 million cash contribution;
• Time Warner Cable handed over $600,000 . The cable company was also the premier sponsor of the host committee’s media welcome party;
• CenturyLink handed over $10,500 to the DNC via New American City;
• Google Foundation contributed $100,000;
• National Cable Satellite Corporation (parent company of cable-industry financed C-SPAN): $2,500
• Turner Broadcasting System (now owned by Time Warner (Entertainment)): $25,000
• Verizon Wireless handed over $50,000

While accepting the contributions violates the Democrats’ commitment not to accept corporate money, election observers concerned with the pervasive influence of corporate cash are not giving Republicans a free pass. With no restrictions on fundraising, the GOP raised nearly $56 million from AT&T and other telecommunications entities, big oil and gas companies, hedge fund managers, big banks, and wealthy individuals.

Corporations like AT&T may not be visible on television during the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, but they are throwing lavish parties and shaking hands behind the scenes. They’ll get their money’s worth later.

Behind the scenes at both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, AT&T is throwing secretive parties, handing out “schwag bags,” and engaging in a legal form of influence peddling to buy themselves goodwill with the eventual election winners.

The Republican National Convention held a week ago in Tampa, Fla. featured lavish, invitation-only parties for politicians attending the convention, sponsored quietly by AT&T.

AT&T went over the top at the Republican event, handing out goodie bags with stuffed elephants emblazoned with the company’s logo, convention pins, and other handouts designed to keep their name front and center with GOP movers and shakers. Tampa Bay Online found the phone company rented out one upscale, popular Tampa restaurant for the entire week, throwing expensive private parties for various state delegations.

The restaurant: Jackson’s Bistro, which locked the doors and turned its back on local regulars for the benefit of GOP high-rollers.

The sponsor: After digging, it turns out the money to rent the upscale eatery came from AT&T, but you wouldn’t know it from the restaurant owner and staff, which have been told to keep their mouths shut about who was paying for supper.

The sneaky: AT&T discovered it could easily navigate around loophole-ridden campaign finance laws which limit corporate-sponsored dinners, but have nothing much to say about “cocktail events.” So as long as diners are standing up while they munch, shake hands, and chat, it’s a-okay.

The mission: To get face time and establish goodwill with political movers and shakers. Feed them, toss them some AT&T flair, and let them know you will be calling on them soon. But no need to overdo it: AT&T can do more talking later… after the politicians get elected and the time is right to get the company’s agenda into the law books.

Keenan Steiner from the non-profit Sunlight Foundation says “this is where the seeds are planted for laws to be written in Washington and in state capitols all over the country.” He notes how important it is for both political parties to have the overwhelming corporate presence that most Americans never understand exists at both conventions:

The significance is, they wouldn’t be here, able to have a good time the whole time, without these corporations. It’s a sort of starting process to become dependent on these corporations. And in Washington, lawmakers require the about 100 lobbyists, over 20 lobbying firms that AT&T hires—they require the work of these folks to get their work done. They’re a sort of legislative subsidy. And they also require these corporations to get re-elected. They want to stay in office, and you better be friends with the Chamber of Commerce, with the NRA, with the big nonprofit groups, the shadowy nonprofit groups, that you really better be friends with them, because, if not, they could drop a lot of money in your district, and they could make you lose an election.

The Sunlight Foundation is tracking corporate money used to break bread and hand out cocktails to your lawmakers.

The Sunlight Foundation reports AT&T has been tilting toward the GOP: The contributions from AT&T’s PAC, employees and their family members to federal candidates total about $3 million for the 2012 cycle, with about two-thirds of the money going to Republican federal officeholders and candidates. Sunlight’s Political Party Time website helps break down where AT&T spends even more money wining and dining legislators.

The Michigan Republican delegation threw its kickoff party there Saturday night, which featured top state lawmakers. Guests at the event went home with a stuffed elephant with an AT&T logo, the Detroit News reported. AT&T also sponsored an Illinois delegation event there on Tuesday afternoon. The Chicago Sun-Times reported that the telecom giant is sponsoring the event, and events lists showed that the Illinois delegates was at Jackson’s that afternoon.

At this week’s Democratic National Convention at the Time Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte, N.C., AT&T’s Death Star logo isn’t hard to spot either.

Amidst the goodie bags and handouts from Indian tribes trying to secure lucrative casino laws, big pharmaceutical companies asking for special favors, and giant energy companies was once again: AT&T.

AT&T’s stuffed GOP elephant. (Democracy Now)

On Tuesday, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), Democratic national chairwoman, lectured the Republicans about the influence of special interest cash at the Republican National Convention. She referred to the GOP affair as “last week’s special-interest funded, corporate-infused, backroom-deals, smoke-filled room, invitation-only affair that was held in my home state.”

Only the breakfast event where she made the remarks was bought and paid for by AT&T.

AT&T does not splurge on upscale dining for Democrats though. The party that largely opposed AT&T’s merger deal with T-Mobile and often supports Net Neutrality is making due with a far-smaller AT&T hospitality suite serving scrambled eggs and bagels at the inelegant Airport DoubleTree Inn, quite a step down from the Caramelized Diver Scallops and Red Snapper on the menu for the corporate-friendly GOP.

AT&T’s pervasive presence at the Charlotte convention is also upsetting union workers, who turned out in large numbers at the convention. Unionized employees are still fighting with AT&T for a new contract. Already uncomfortable in a state where union workers are virtually an endangered species (to add insult, unions were booked in non-unionized hotels), many were unprepared to feast at AT&T’s breakfast buffet.

“This is one breakfast I won’t be eating,” William Henderson, the president of Local 1298 of the Communications Workers of America told the CT Mirror. “I won’t eat their stuff.”

Only he didn’t say “stuff.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/William Henderson Boycotts ATT Breakfast.flv[/flv]

William Henderson, president of a Connecticut chapter of the Communications Workers of America, stands outside leafleting an AT&T-sponsored breakfast in Charlotte, N.C., displaying a bumper sticker: “AT&T=Greed.”  (1 minute)

What should a good union worker with a gripe against AT&T do instead?  Leaflet the event, to the great potential embarrassment of AT&T officials and Connecticut Democratic lawmakers holding a union grievance brochure in one hand and an AT&T coffee cup in the other.

The room eventually quieted down to listen to former Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd make remarks… on behalf of the Motion Picture Association of America, who he now represents.

Despite the Snapper-Gap between the two political parties, you cannot miss AT&T in Charlotte. Although convention spokespeople officially refer to corporate sponsors as “providers,” AT&T’s corporate logo is “provided” on every last lanyard handed to delegates and journalists, right next to Barack Obama’s campaign logo.

In case you forgot to charge your cell phone, two AT&T officials are permanently on hand at a table near the entrance to the event offering free battery boosters. But don’t worry, they’ll get paid back for that goodwill later.

[flv width=”448″ height=”276″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Party Time RNC Cash.flv[/flv]

Democracy Now talks with Sunlight Foundation’s Keenan Steiner who shares the secrets of corporate cash at the Republican National Convention in Tampa.  (18 minutes)