"We're going to need another roll."

Astroturf: One of the underhanded tactics increasingly being used by telecom companies is “Astroturf lobbying” – creating front groups that try to mimic true grassroots, but that are all about corporate money, not citizen power. Astroturf lobbying is hardly a new approach. Senator Lloyd Bentsen is credited with coining the term in the 1980s to describe corporations’ big-money efforts to put fake grassroots pressure on Congress. Astroturf campaigns generally claim to represent huge numbers of citizens, but in reality their public support is minimal or nonexistent. — Common Cause’s Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing Part II: More Telecom Industry Front Groups and Astroturf.”

The telecommunications industry has gone all out with a new super-sized front group claiming to “work to bring the Internet to everyone.”  The so-called Broadband for America (BfA) Coalition launched a new website, Broadband for America, which is completely infested with industry players and groups they call “independent consumer advocacy groups,” but are in reality mostly astroturfers themselves.  More than 100 corporate providers and special interest front groups make up the BfA, which they brazenly claim “represent the hundreds of millions of Americans who are literally connected through broadband.”

Of course, what is missing from this mess are the hundreds of millions of actual American consumers.  They aren’t on the list.  Also missing after checking more than 100 BfA member websites is any press push to notify their members they are now a part of this group.  In fact, none of the so-called public interest websites seemed at all interested in promoting their new found friends.

The BfA wants you to think the industry party list is a strength, not a weakness:

The range of members of BfA is evidence of the importance which is being placed on the issues of broadband availability and broadband adoption. It is also evidence of BfA’s commitment to being a full participant on behalf of all stakeholders to provide a central clearinghouse for the latest thinking, the most advanced assessments, and the widest variety of views and opinions on the future of broadband in America.

That’s a word salad that can be condensed down considerably to: The Mother of All Astroturf Front Groups.

A comprehensive guide to the members of the BfA can be found below.  It was developed from extensive research into the background and financing of many of these groups, as well as their membership in classic astroturf groups that are run against consumer interests.

When The National Cable & Telecommunications Association is on your member list, along with giant providers like AT&T and Verizon, you know we’re far, far away from defining this group as “pro-consumer.”

Over the last week pouring across websites and independent documentation, I encountered a few particularly brazen astroturf groups and the individuals that run them whose names kept coming up time and time again.

One of the more interesting groups that caught my eye was the Child Safety Task Force.  What could be wrong with a group like that?  Who could possibly ever find fault with a group that sounds like they are dedicated to unyielding protection of our children.

But when one visits their website, some cautionary lights begin to flash when you read their Mission Statement (italics mine):

“The Child Safety Task Force believes that legislation and regulatory decisions concerning children’s safety measures should be grounded in principles of good-governance and sound science.”

Perhaps I have been doing this too long, but the portions in italics sound suspicious.  A child safety group whose primary task is involvement in public policy.  Uh oh.  That smells like lobbyist.  The enigmatic “good-governance and sound science” sounds like code words for pro-industry protections from consumer groups.

Indeed, group president Robert K. Johnson is the Zelig of astroturfers.  He’s everywhere.  He was president of the now-defunct Consumers for Cable Choice, a front group for AT&T and other providers advocating for telco TV and strident opposition to Net Neutrality.  Amusingly, Johnson’s group broadened its focus by dropping the word “cable” from its title and renaming themselves Consumers for Competitive Choice (C4CC).  New name, same old notorious astroturfing.

Johnson’s idea of “child safety” is to poo-pooh the risk of phthalates in children’s toys.  I haven’t found too many consumer groups adopting that kind of pro-plastics industry position.  Johnson testified under the C4CC moniker before the House of Delegates, Maryland General Assembly with this in his opening statement:

“A case in point is the effort by some states to include phthalates in legislation limiting the amount of lead and other proven carcinogens in children’s’ toys. The effort is misplaced and ultimately detrimental to consumers.”

Apparently not satisfied that C4CC was pro-child safety-sounding enough, Johnson’s Child Safety Task Force & C4CC have linked to one another as resources without clearly disclosing their common ties.

Johnson also founded Consumers’ Voice, which Verizon trashed in 2002: “Consumers’ Voice . . . should really be named `AT&T’s Voice.’ At a recent National Conference of State Legislatures meeting, a representative from this group admitted that it is entirely supported by AT&T. Moreover, Consumers’ Voice has no state chapters or affiliates. Johnson actually is an AT&T hired gun.” – William R. Roberts, president, Verizon Maryland, Inc., (Cumberland Times-News, August 22, 2002.) Another BfA member, Consumers First (California), could easily be confused with the former, but no matter, it receives funding from AT&T (and Verizon) too, and belonged to Johnson’s now defunct Consumers for Cable Competition.

Another astroturfer paradise comes courtesy of the LawMedia Group (LMG), a secretive Washington DC public affairs firm. The firm’s website says it “unites the worlds of law, communications, strategic counseling and crisis management into seamless campaigns for Fortune 100 companies, trade associations, start-ups and non-profits.”  Ads for LMG describe its services as including “government relations” (lobbying), “grassroots lobbying,” “issue/initiative/petition management,” “media production” and “opposition research.”

LMG has a nasty habit of ghostwriting op-ed pieces on behalf of third parties, occasionally without their knowledge, and send them in for publication as supposedly written by those individuals.  Last summer, LMG submitted a column it wrote on behalf of Mel King, a Boston-area community organizer and staunch Net Neutrality advocate that turned out to oppose Net Neutrality.  King admitted that LMG was involved and refused to say whether “he was paid for the use of his name,” reported CNET News.

LMG reportedly has two major clients of interest to our readers – Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator and Microsoft.  The former is looking for cable and broadband industry-friendly advocacy (opposition to Net Neutrality, favoring government “hands off” policies governing cable operators and broadband) and the latter has particularly been interested in Google bashing, especially surrounding a Yahoo-Google advertising deal.

One of LMG’s specialties is reportedly to co-opt groups that most would assume would have no direct interest in the issues its clients hire the PR firm to promote.  Yet suddenly these non-aligned groups  spring forth with amazingly detailed, uniform advocacy for LMG’s clients’ positions in the media, to members of Congress, and even in submitted comments to regulatory agencies.

Would you find it curious that in 2008 The American Corn Growers Association would suddenly find the need to rush a letter to the Justice Department urging them to launch an investigation into Google’s ‘search monopoly?’  Apparently the harvest was finished and they had free time on their hands.  But they only started the trend, because similar letters on the letterheads of the League of Rural Voters and the Latinos in Information Science & Technology Association also followed.  The latter just happens to also turn up as a member of the BfA.

That’s no coincidence.  BfA member Intertribal Agriculture Council, which is supposed to advocate for the wise stewardship of Native-American lands for the benefit of its people, suddenly decided to throw its two cents into last year’s Sirius-XM Radio merger debate, publicly endorsing the deal and urging the FCC to approve it. That was also an action item on the LMG priority list, according to Sourcewatch. They were joined by several other groups that common sense would suggest wouldn’t spend five minutes pondering this transaction.  Among them include (again) the League of Rural Voters and the Latinos in Information Science & Technology Association.  Some other BfA members also chimed in: the National Black Chamber of Commerce, The Latino Coalition, and the American Association of People With Disabilities.

The Latino Coalition left a lot of heads scratching in 2007 when it advocated against bans on exclusive cable providers in rental properties.  Consumers moved into apartment buildings and found they had to take whatever the landlord made available — no satellite TV or competing providers allowed.  Consumer groups howled demanding these exclusive agreements be banished to give consumers choices for subscription television.  The Latino Coalition told the Los Angeles Times that was a bad idea, and anti-consumer.

The Latino Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group, warned the FCC that prohibiting exclusive contracts could leave minority and low-income residents with higher bills or no service at all.

“The advantages of these exclusive contracts are important selling points for apartment buildings in urban neighborhoods where residents wouldn’t otherwise have the ability to negotiate the best price for cable TV or broadband services,” Latino Coalition President Robert G. de Posada wrote to the FCC.

It comes as no surprise de Posada also opposed Net Neutrality.  He criticized the concept passionately, telling EbonyJet magazine in 2007 it represented “over regulation of the Internet.”  Net Neutrality would, according to de Posada, “stifle rather than facilitate entrepreneurism.”

Among the Coalition’s corporate partners: AT&T and Verizon.  The former’s logo appears at the bottom corner of the The Latino Coalition home page.

Apparently astroturf coordinators like to use some of the same groups for different issues.  This past May, the Intertribal Agricultural Council had a new-found common cause with, of all things, small-jet operators opposed to a proposal to shift some of the airline carriers’ federal tax burden onto small jet aviators.  Jets fly over farmland, and some might even cross over reservations, so I guess that’s a legitimate priority item for a Native American group like IAC, right?

The IAC joined forces with The Alliance for Aviation Across America (AAAA), a group run by LMG according to Sourcewatch.  But they were not alone.  Two more BfA members coincidentally also turn up as improbable members of the AAAA: the National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry and U.S. Cattlemen’s Association.

Astroturf Warehouse Club: We lie in bulk and pass the BS on to you!

The practice of bringing non-aligned groups into public policy debates, particularly those involving minorities, can be a public relations miracle worker, especially for lobbying projects that don’t exactly look consumer friendly.  Often, minority public interest group involvement is highlighted by lobbyists appealing to public officials who can make or break a merger deal or vote up or down on regulatory matters.  If Native Americans, Latinos, African Americans, and the disabled are against Net Neutrality or for Internet Overcharging schemes, maybe there is something elected officials are missing.

In reality, all they frequently miss is the public relations lobbying machine in Washington that runs the show.  Even worse is when legitimate consumer voices are crowded out because all of the chairs set out for real consumers are occupied by astroturf groups pretending to represent consumer interests.

One group, the National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, was another oddity in the Broadband for America member roster, until one started taking a closer look at who serves on the group’s Board of Directors.  The connection to Verizon was immediately obvious.  B. Keith Fulton, a Board member, is also President of Verizon West Virginia.  Fulton joined Verizon in 2004 as vice president of strategic alliances and corporate responsibility, where he led a Washington, D.C.-based team that worked with more than 100 national organizations on communications related public policy issues.

But the connections with big telecom didn’t stop there.  Jarvis C. Stewart, chairman, is also Managing Partner at Stewart Partners LLC, a Washington, DC Public Relations firm.  A 2006 press release admits a further connection: “Stewart Partners currently manages the federal legislative and public affairs agendas of global industry titans such as […] Verizon.”

Muckety, which graphically illustrates public/private connections shows yet more involvement, this time with William Clyburn, Jr., who also serves on the group’s Board. It maps links between Clyburn and the U.S. Telecom Association and AT&T through Clyburn Consulting.

Clyburn Consulting’s website states:

“At Clyburn Consulting, we guide telecommunications stakeholders through the federal legislative process.  We provide strategic analyses of the technical aspects as well as the political implications of telecommunications policy debates.  The impending updates to our telecommunications laws will have a major impact for years to come on how we process voice, video, and data.  Clyburn Consulting is at the forefront of shaping the future of telecommunications. Clyburn Consulting has been instrumental in persuading Members of Congress to support major legislation for a Fortune 500 telecommunications firm (guess who? –PD).  William Clyburn is integrally involved in garnering support by not only providing access to Congressional offices for the client, but also by substantively engaging senior staff on the technical issues.”

On June 8, 2009, the National Caucus and Center on Black Aged wrote the FCC about the national broadband strategy.  Without disclosing any connections to the telecommunications industry, the group advocated:

Unfortunately too many seniors are not aware of these critical, and often life-saving, benefits. In order for more seniors to see the importance of having broadband, barriers must remain low for adoption. Only 15% of seniors cite price as the reason why they have not brought broadband into their homes. Currently, private sector network providers are investing billions of dollars to build out and maintain broadband infrastructure. This investment has enabled affordable prices. If the FCC’s broadband plan does not maintain incentives for the private sector to continue to invest, consumers will see fewer options and possibly higher prices.

We hope that the FCC will provide for continued investment on the part of private sector participants while working to bring broadband to every household in the country. Our nation’s African American seniors have so much to gain from broadband and they deserve to experience its benefits.

When some of these groups testify in hearings or submit written comments “representing consumer interests” when they are in fact acting like sock puppets backed with industry money, too many legislators may be persuaded to support an industry position thinking it’s what consumers really want.

Therefore, it’s important to provide additional disclosure about the groups, companies, and organizations that attempt to claim to speak on your behalf, the consumer broadband user.

This comprehensive breakdown of the members of BfA is by no means absolutely complete.  It is based on a week’s worth of research into the groups and their ties.  As much as possible, links are provided to back up assertions made.  Some groups may have discontinued their support of individual astroturf campaigns that have since expired, but considering the fact most of them are coming back for a repeat performance, past is prologue.

Feel free to build on this work in our Comment section.  We’ll use additional information as part of an effort to construct a resource database for consumers and others at risk of being hoodwinked by the astroturf bonanza that is Broadband for America.  Don’t bother exposing them on their own site’s community forum; it has some seriously draconian rules for user participation:

General Guidelines

• Do not post material or contact anyone to suggest your product, website or service. Posts of this kind will be considered SPAM and your account, profile and posts will be removed immediately.
• Your account is yours alone. You are responsible for any activity created with it. If you choose to ignore this important restriction your account will be removed.
• Signature Spam (a post that was made in hopes of showing a signature, as determined by moderators) is forbidden in all forum categories.
• You may not post on behalf of any banned member in any public manner. This includes all forums, private messages, signatures, and e-mail features.
• You may not use discussions to recommend, praise, or belittle other products, services, or any company without firsthand experience of those products or services. This includes companies recommending other companies.
• If your user name is the same as your URL or company name, you may not refer to it outside the advertising forums.
• You may not post any message that directs others to any pages at your own commercial domain, including informational pages. A commercial domain is defined as a site that receives any type of income or links to any income producing properties.
• You may not solicit users for any project or purpose external to the forum – public, private, or commercial. Most importantly, our member base is not a resource to be “mined” by individuals, groups, or businesses, for profit or not for profit.
• You are expected and required to read and follow the rules outlined within a category that are posted as Announcements.
• We welcome constructive feedback, but will not tolerate excessive public posts criticizing Broadband for America staff.
• Public posts debating these rules and/or moderators’ enforcement of such will be removed without comment.

We reserve the right to modify and amend these terms at any time without notice. It is your responsibility to remain informed of current Discuss.BroadbandForAmerica.com policies.  We further reserve our right to disable any account at any time for any reason and without notice.  If there are any rules or policies you do not understand, please contact us.  Finally, any abuse towardsBroadband for America staff and/or management in any form will result in immediate suspension of your account.

Be sure to check out our complete rundown on the members of Broadband for America.  It’s in part two of this Astroturf Special!

One of the more far out there arguments against Net Neutrality has consistently come from conservative astroturf groups, who receive plenty of corporate funding to advocate a pro-business agenda using arguments that appeal to a conservative audience.

Newsmax, one of the more widely-read conservative websites, has gone all out on the theory that Net Neutrality is an attempt by President Barack Obama to take control of the Internet, potentially even leading to censorship.  In an unconvincing video segment, Newsmax.TV reporter Ashley Martella interviews Ryan Radia, an Information Policy Analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a pro-business think tank.

Newsmax TV: Net Neutrality is a "regulatory power grab" (4 minutes)

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>(Note: Because Google video ads auto-play without your consent, which we do not agree with at Stop the Cap!, clicking the image will launch a new browser window to take you to Newsmax’s site to play the video there.)

A number of conservative blogs and news sources have latched onto one echo chamber claim: “CBS News recently reported that a cyber security bill would give Obama the emergency powers he’d need to control the Internet.”  When a link to the actual report is not provided, that should ring warning bells in your head.  Unfortunately, too many people simply accept statements as fact and never bother to check them out.  If Katie Courac is warning the country about an Obama power grab online, I want to know about it.

Stop the Cap! is one of the few, the proud, the fact checkers.

As with most of the memes attacking Net Neutrality on political grounds, there is considerable exaggeration at work here.  We could find two references on CBS News’ website to the aforementioned claim, and both turned out not to be news reports, but one blog entry and a reprinted news article from a conservative news site¹:

• Senate Proposal Gives President Authority Over Internet, by Declan McCullagh, a senior correspondent for CBS News’ Web site.  (August 28, 2009)
• An Unconstitutional Internet Power Grab, by Bruce Henderson, reprinted with permission from The New Ledger, a conservative news site founded by Ben Domenech of RedState blog fame. (September 1, 2009)

An Associated Press wire story this past weekend covering proposed legislation also appears on CBS News (and thousands of other websites).

At issue is S.773, The Cybersecurity Act of 2009, a Senate bill introduced by Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) to establish an effective defense against cyber attacks on the United States.  Some early drafts of the proposed bill had some language, long since discarded, that could have raised privacy concerns, but it’s disingenuous at best to suggest this bill’s language, known to Newsmax and others propagating these near-hysterical conspiracy theories, would give any power to the Obama Administration to silence dissent and “control the Internet.”

In fact, this legislation does not even originate with the White House.  Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, de-fanged the hysteria back in late August in a statement:

The President of the United States has always had the Constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the President’s authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a “government shut down or takeover of the internet” and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the President directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government’s response.

Radia, for his part, illustrates the effort to co-opt conservatives who distrust the Obama Administration into coming along for the ride for an industry friendly snowjob opposing Net Neutrality, with helpful prodding from Martella:

Martella: Could this lead to censorship?

Radia: There is the possibility of that.  What we have seen lately is the Obama Administration and agency officials attempt to increase their power over government networks.  Just a few weeks ago, CBS News reported that a cyber security bill would give Obama emergency powers to control the Internet.  Under a Net Neutrality regime, we could see the FCC tell companies what data they can and cannot prioritize.

Martella’s wild “censorship” reference was jarring because it comes out of the blue with no supporting preposition.  In fact, it’s pro-Net Neutrality advocates that fear providers could engage in censorship, because there have been instances where providers have done just that.  Net Neutrality impacts private Internet providers by demanding they do not block, impede, or interfere with third party website content.

Radia plays mix ‘n match with two different issues to create a magical blend of nonsense — the cyber security bill which conservatives fear is an Obama power grab and Net Neutrality’s consumer protections against abusive broadband network management.

The Obama Administration’s advocacy of Net Neutrality is not about increasing power over government networks.  CBS News did not report that a cyber security bill would give Obama emergency powers to control the Internet — it printed a blogger’s opinion and a reprint from a conservative news site that hypothesized such a bill, if it existed, would do that.  Radia defines Net Neutrality as the FCC telling companies what data they can and cannot prioritize.  Actually it just preserves the open network that has made the Internet so unique.  But on behalf of his provider friends, that issue is force-merged into the Obama “Internet takeover” theory, with the hope it will energize conservatives to also oppose Net Neutrality.

Radia’s arguments are hardly convincing.  He repeats the unpersuasive and undocumented fears that “Net Neutrality … is a rule that would stifle innovation, would reduce network investment, and it would decrease consumer choice in the broadband market.”  It sounds like he also bought a ticket to OppositeLand, where reality is defined as the exact opposite of the truth.  As is the case in Canada, it is the lack of Net Neutrality protection which stifles innovation from new high bandwidth applications that cannot succeed in a marketplace rich with Internet Overcharging schemes and speed throttles.  Online video for Canada is just one of several applications that have been stifled by provider controls.  There is no evidence Net Neutrality would reduce investment in networks.  Customers clamoring to use those networks and the diversity of online content is much more likely to stimulate network upgrades to maintain quality of service.  How consumer choice in the broadband market (which most consumers believe is hardly robust) would be impacted negatively is never explained.

Radia accidentally justifies why FCC policy alone is not enough to guarantee Net Neutrality protection when he points out Congress has not specifically authorized the FCC to get involved in the network management of service providers.  A bill in the House of Representatives would do just that, however.

Radia’s assumptions that consumers are pleased with the competitive marketplace, particularly for wireless, are dubious at best, particularly when he makes this stunning statement:

“If you want a walled garden, a device where a company controls and helps guide the user experience, you can get an iPhone.”

Of course, many iPhone users have complained openly and loudly about the fact they are stuck with AT&T — AT&T retains an exclusive arrangement with Apple in the United States to sell the phone for use on AT&T’s network.  They also aren’t too happy being limited by both companies in selecting applications to run on the phone, something managed by Apple and AT&T unless the customer “jailbreaks” the phone to bypass the restrictions.  The result is a stifled iPhone user experience on an overloaded AT&T wireless network, higher pricing on service plans for the iPhone, and consumer choice limited to deciding whether to live with these restrictions or go without.

Radia suggests Net Neutrality is being pushed just by a handful of “so-called consumer groups that believe that since their preferences are not being matched in the market, that they should use the hand of government to force these rules upon the private sector.”  His problem with that is that he believes (along with the providers who spend millions lobbying) that consumers are well served by today’s marketplace filled with proprietary business models.

Of course, real consumer groups can’t exist without consumers that actually support them, and as we’ve documented since this site launched, consumers are not well served by the limited competitive marketplace, and the abuses that come from that, and they’ve complained loudly and regularly to those providers about those practices.  They aren’t listening.  So consumers are turning to the public officials who regulate and oversee such markets to attempt to force them to listen.

Newsmax’s efforts to give mainstream media credibility to a sensationalized claim was only outdone by Radia himself on his own bio page:

Ryan is a frequent contributor to the Technology Liberation Front, the technology policy blog dedicated to preserving freedom and liberty in the information age. His ideas have been referenced by technology writers including Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic’s Daily Dish, Karl Bode of Broadband Reports, and Mike Masnick of Techdirt.

Karl Bode found it ironic Radia would reference a piece he wrote, because Bode’s article trashed Radia and his friends for claiming a cable price war was resulting in consumer savings.  The Techdirt piece Radia links to didn’t exactly give him a seal of approval either:

Last month, we mocked some mainstream press reports claiming both a broadband price war and the fact that broadband prices were rising. There doesn’t really seem to be much of either, as broadband prices have remained pretty constant, even accounting for promotional pricing. However, with Comcast getting ready to significantly boost speeds (yes, with its broadband caps, Ryan Radia is wondering if the actual “price war” is hidden by the fact that it’s in price per megabit.

In other words, if prices remain constant, but your speed doubles, isn’t that something of a price decrease? Radia chalks this all up to competition in the market, but it should at least be admitted that the speeds (even these higher speeds) still pale in comparison to other countries where there is much greater competition than in the US, where most people still are limited to only two real choices. Either way, as someone who’s still stuck on a home connection that runs around 500k (below the new 768k cutoff for “real” broadband) despite being in the center of Silicon Valley, I’m still not convinced that these greater speeds are so readily available yet.

We invite Radia to link to our spanking as well.

¹Using search terms “obama emergency internet” and “emergency internet” on the CBS News website.

AT&T: 'Google is violating the Net Neutrality tenets we spend millions to make sure don't become law.'

AT&T sent a letter late last week to the Federal Communications Commission calling out Google Voice, the free adjunct Voice Over IP service being tested by Google, for blocking calls to certain high cost telephone numbers.  Robert W. Quinn, Jr., Senior Vice President of AT&T’s Federal Regulatory office complained that AT&T has been forced to complete those calls while Google Voice does not, suggesting that might be the equivalent of a Net Neutrality violation, if not an outright violation of call completion requirements established by the Commission.

These days, almost anything can be defined as a Net Neutrality violation.  If I was a vegetarian and I blocked meat products from my home, I’d probably get a letter from AT&T’s counsel too.

At issue here is the exploitation of a loophole that was established by telecom regulators to provide extra financial support to rural community telephone companies.  When a person places a long distance call, part of the charge is paid to the company that connects the call from the long distance network to the recipient’s telephone line.  The fees long distance companies pay vary depending on the size of the community and the length of the call.  Small rural areas enjoy a higher call completion fee than urban areas do.

Some enterprising individuals discovered the fees being paid to rural phone companies were higher than the actual costs to provide the service.  Traditionally, that extra money was used by rural phone companies, often independent or customer-owned cooperatives, to keep their service costs down and to maintain their equipment.  Long distance carriers didn’t care because the number of calls to these rural communities was comparatively small.

But what would happen if a company set up a telephone number to receive lots of calls that would otherwise never be made to such rural communities?  The result could be a financial windfall.  That possibility persuaded a few rural phone companies to let third parties offer international calling, conference calling and adult phone chat services for no charge beyond whatever the customer has to pay to make the long distance call.  In return, the phone company kicks back a significant portion of the extra income they earn from “call completion fees” to the service providers.

AT&T, among others, got wind of this arrangement and flipped out, complaining they were paying an ever increasing bill from rural phone companies hosting these services.  Anyone with an unlimited long distance plan could call these numbers for free and stay connected for hours at a time.

Unsurprisingly, AT&T blocked calls to these services for a period in 2007, refused to pay for some prior charges, and sued several phone companies.

AT&T/Cingular spokesperson Mark Siegel told Ars that the reason the company has decided to start blocking these services is because high volumes of calls to similar services are costly, and the cost of those calls aren’t passed on to the customer. “We have to pay terminating access for every minute the person is on the line,” Siegel explained. “Typically these companies run them through local exchange companies that charge high access rates, so we end up paying high access charges.”

The FCC intervened and said phone companies cannot arbitrarily block customer access to phone numbers, and the blocks were removed.  Today, the free international long distance calling services are basically gone, but free conference calling lines and adult sex chat services remain, and Google Voice has now discovered the perils of connecting calls, for free, to these services.  So now they have blocked access as well.  Google Voice beta testers report calling blocked numbers results in perpetual busy signals.

AT&T pounced in a letter to the FCC:

Numerous press reports indicate that Google is systematically blocking telephone calls from consumers that use Google Voice to call telephone numbers in certain rural communities.  By blocking these calls, Google is able to reduce its access expenses. Other providers, including those with which Google Voice competes, are banned from call blocking because in June 2007, the Wireline Competition Bureau emphatically declared that all carriers are prohibited from pursuing “self help actions such as call blocking.” The Bureau expressed concern that call blocking “may degrade the reliability of the nation’s telecommunications network.” Google Voice thus has claimed for itself a significant advantage over providers offering competing services.

But even if Google Voice is instead an “Internet application,” Google would still be subject to the Commission’s Internet Policy Statement, whose fourth principle states that “consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.” This fourth principle cannot fairly be read to embrace competition in which one provider unilaterally appropriates to itself regulatory advantages over its competitors. By openly flaunting the call blocking prohibition that applies to its competitors, Google is acting in a manner inconsistent with the fourth principle.

Ironically, Google is also flouting the so-called “fifth principle of non-discrimination” for which Google has so fervently advocated (Net Neutrality). According to Google, non-discrimination ensures that a provider “cannot block fair access” to another provider. But that is exactly what Google is doing when it blocks calls that Google Voice customers make to telephone numbers associated with certain local exchange carriers. The Financial Times aptly recognized this fundamental flaw in Google’s position: “network neutrality is similar to common carriage because it enforces non-discrimination . . . Google is arguing for others to be bound by network neutrality and, on the other hand arguing against itself being bound by common carriage,” which leaves Google with an “intellectual contradiction” in its argument.

Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel for Google, fired back a response on the Google Policy Blog countering AT&T’s arguments:

Google Voice’s goal is to provide consumers with free or low-cost access to as many advanced communications features as possible. In order to do this, Google Voice does restrict certain outbound calls from our Web platform to these high-priced destinations. But despite AT&T’s efforts to blur the distinctions between Google Voice and traditional phone service, there are many significant differences:

• Unlike traditional carriers, Google Voice is a free, Web-based software application, and so not subject to common carrier laws.
  
• Google Voice is not intended to be a replacement for traditional phone service — in fact, you need an existing land or wireless line in order to use it. Importantly, users are still able to make outbound calls on any other phone device.
• Google Voice is currently invitation-only, serving a limited number of users.

AT&T is trying to make this about Google’s support for an open Internet, but the comparison just doesn’t fly. The FCC’s open Internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers — not the creators of Web-based software applications. Even though the FCC does not have jurisdiction over how software applications function, AT&T apparently wants to use the regulatory process to undermine Web-based competition and innovation.

The HissyFit is on, and it’s almost entirely beside the point.  Once again, Net Neutrality is being used as a convenient flogging tool, this time by a company that spends millions to oppose it, yet sanctimoniously demands others should comply with its founding principles.  While the systematic blocking of telephone numbers may echo the kinds of concerns Net Neutrality protection is designed to address, it’s not as on point as AT&T would have you believe.

Google Voice isn’t even close to being a replacement for telephone service.  It’s not even openly available to the public.  AT&T would have had a stronger argument complaining about MagicJack, the dongle that lets you make unlimited long distance calls for $20 a year.  They go beyond just blocking some of the conference calling services — they actually redirect calls to a recording encouraging customers to instead use one of their own partners instead.

Dan Borislow, inventor of MagicJack says “it is not illegal for us to block calls to [conference calling numbers.]  We have invited other conference calling companies to interconnect to us for free, so we can complete our customers’ calls to them.”

Google’s public policy response isn’t as satisfying as it could have been either, and uses some weak arguments in rebuttal.  Much more important and on point is finding a way to address call completion fee loopholes through a change in telecommunications policy.  The telecommunications landscape has fundamentally changed in ways that existing rules could not have anticipated.  Addressing that issue would provide immediate relief to both AT&T and Google Voice without dragging consumer interests into a telecom policy cat fight.

Unfortunately, that’s a point far too fine for many media types, bloggers, and the sock puppets to understand (or desire to), and the campaign of Waving Shiny Keys of Distraction will carry on, and may have been AT&T’s intention in making such an argument in the first place.

Now that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has put the issue of Net Neutrality on the front burner, the often-ludicrous reasons some people give to oppose Net Neutrality are coming out all over the place.  When you find one that is particularly preposterous, use the Contact Us link at the top of the screen and drop us a summary and a link.  We’ll be calling out the silliest and debunking those that might sound good on the surface but have a soft, squishy, logic-free center.

To get us started, this letter to the editor turned up last week in The Seattle Times:

The recent Seattle Times editorial on net neutrality seemed logical on the surface [“Protecting net neutrality,” Opinion, Sept. 22], but in reality was a Robin Hood-style regulation.

Let me pose a question: What would The Times’ opinion be if the Federal Communications Commission mandated The Times’ facilities were open to anyone who wants to use it as they wished?

I suspect the company would probably make an argument that it made the huge capital investment, and therefore should have control over who can or cannot use it.

So explain, what is the fundamental difference between the management of this capital asset and that of a company such as Comcast or any other Internet provider?

I suspect nothing other than another example of government intervention into a business and technology they do not understand. The Times should be thankful they are not focused on the newspaper industry.

I’ve long accused the Federal Communications Commission of being out of touch and not understanding (‘broadband over power lines’ advocacy being a particularly stupid idea on their part), but rest assured, they are well acquainted with the arguments the broadband industry makes to preserve its position.  Providers spend tens of millions of dollars to hire lobbyists to advocate just that.

To use Robin Hood as an analogy puts us squarely in OppositeLand, where ‘up is down’ and ‘right is left.’  Robin Hood was a story about robbing from the rich to give to the poor.  This writer seems to think the “poor” are Comcast and AT&T, and the individual customers most at risk from Net Neutrality abuse are somehow the “rich.”

Perhaps it would have been more apt to suggest the Seattle Times would be guilty of Net Neutrality abuse if it openly refused to print ‘letters to the editor’ or interview people for stories who did not have a home delivery subscription to the newspaper.

A newspaper, of course, is not the equivalent of the global Internet.  It’s just one of countless content creators that use the Internet to make their content more accessible to an online audience, one that might choose to read what they publish.  That’s an important distinction, because Net Neutrality does not interfere with content creators and tell them what they can and cannot say.  It helps protect their independence.  The Seattle Times can print whatever they see fit, and you and I make the individual decision to read or not read what they publish.

More importantly, and why the writer’s analogy misses the mark:  If you or I don’t like The Times and think we can do a better job, we can start our own website and publish our own content.  We don’t need the imprimatur of establishment media to make our own content available to the masses.  Individual readers will judge the quality and value of our content individually, and determine its importance and relevance accordingly.  So you or I don’t need to demand The Seattle Times open up their presses to our content — we can simply publish our own content independently, enjoying the exact same global reach, and have the potential to be just as successful as they are.

But let’s get back to the writer’s premise and adjust it slightly.  The Times pays a web hosting company to make their articles available online.  They have a business relationship with that hosting company, which uses part of that hosting fee to pay for their own pipeline to the Internet.

Meanwhile, you and I pay a monthly fee for an Internet Service Provider (ISP).  We pay them every month to provide unencumbered connectivity to the Internet, which happens to include the website for The Seattle Times.

One day, our ISP mails a letter to The Times and tells them that unless they pay to become a “preferred content partner,” they can no longer guarantee that the newspaper’s web pages will always reach you and I on a timely basis.  In effect, our ISP now wants to be paid twice — once by us to access the Internet, and once by the newspaper for “assurances” their content will reach us at broadband speeds.

The Times doesn’t have a business relationship with our ISP, but you and I do — specifically to provide the connectivity they suggest may soon no longer be guaranteed to those who “use their pipes for free.”

Now the problem becomes clearer to understand.  Even more concerning is that some of these ISPs own and manage news content sites.  Will they charge themselves the same price they ask from others?

Net Neutrality in its entirety protects content producers, like this website, from having its reach impacted.  Remember, one of the biggest strengths of the Internet is that anyone, anywhere, can reach this website or The Seattle Times on equal terms just by typing in the address.  No Internet user or content producer should have to face a blockade from providers that don’t like the message, had their content moved to the “slow lane” for not paying an unprecedented fee, or had their website overshadowed because a competitor leveraged favorable treatment from their “preferred content partner” status.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who often adopts anti-consumer positions on telecommunications policy, has written a so-called “killer amendment” that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing proposed Net Neutrality rules.

Her amendment, informally proposed Monday as part of a House Interior Appropriations spending measure (H.R. 2996) states:

Purpose: To prohibit the FCC from expending any funds in fiscal year 2010 to implement any Internet neutrality or network management principles, or to promulgate any rules relating to such principles.

Hutchison’s amendment has several Republican co-sponsors: John Ensign (R-Nevada), Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), David Vitter (R-Louisiana), Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina),  and John Thune, (R-South Dakota).

Hutchison released a statement explaining the amendment: “I am deeply concerned by the direction the FCC appears to be heading. We must tread lightly when it comes to new regulations. The case has simply not been made for what amounts to a significant regulatory intervention into a vibrant marketplace. These new regulatory mandates and restrictions could stifle investment incentives.”

Ensign said Net Neutrality would punish a telecommunications industry at a time when it’s managing through an economic downturn.

“Any industry that is able to thrive should be allowed to do so without meddlesome government interference that could stifle innovation,” he said.

Brownback also has a history opposing the consumer interests of his constituents.  Back in May, he penned a letter to a Stop the Cap! reader in Kansas openly favoring Internet Overcharging schemes.

Public interest groups are calling on the public to express their displeasure with the Republican senators for their opposition to Net Neutrality.

One possible explanation for the sudden, strong interest by Hutchison and other Republicans to oppose Net Neutrality can be found in their respective bank accounts.  Hutchison accepted $67,300 in campaign contributions just from AT&T, her ninth largest contributor.

Combined, AT&T donated more than $400,000 among the six Republicans opposing Net Neutrality, and one of those senators, John Thune, used to work for a DC lobbying firm that was hired by Comcast.

The details were compiled by Sam Gustin, a reporter for DailyFinance:

Over the course of his career, Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, has received $220,914 from “telephone utilities,” including some $83,130 from AT&T, his second-largest donor, in the form of employee and lobbyist donations to his campaign and political-action committees. Sprint Nextel has given Brownback $35,550 over the course of his career.

Two of the co-sponsors of the bill, Sen. David Vitter of Lousiana and Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who have both seen their reputations tarnished after sex scandals, have been on the receiving end of AT&T’s largesse. AT&T and predecessor BellSouth have donated $82,050 to Vitter’s campaigns and political-action committees. And over the last four years, AT&T has donated some $61,250 to Ensign’s campaign and political-action committees. Verizon-related entities donated $46,600 to Ensign during that period.

During that time, AT&T has donated $63,750 to the campaign and political-action committees of Sen. Jim DeMint, the South Carolina Republican. AT&T is DeMint’s second-largest donor.

Sen. John Thune, the South Dakota Republican, has not received significant donations from the telecom industry since his 2006 defeat of Sen. Tom Daschle, then Senate majority leader Tom Daschle. But from 2003 to 2005, Thune served as a senior policy adviser to the D.C. lobbying firm of Arent, Fox, when its client Comcast, the largest cable company in the U.S., paid some $40,000 in fees.

[Update: Yesterday evening, Washington Post reporter Cecilia Kang reported that the Republicans were, at least for now, backing off on pushing for their amendment:

“While we are still generally opposed to net neutrality regulations, we have decided to hold off on the amendment because [FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski] approached us and we are beginning a dialogue,” said a staff member on the committee.

Hill watchers said the amendment itself represented standard operating procedure when attempting to block regulatory agency policy decisions, but characterized the Hutchison amendment’s chances of passage as remote.  Hutchison and the Republicans are in the minority in the Senate.]