AT&T is buying newspaper ad space to publish a feel good message about Internet Openness that bears no reality to the company’s multi-million dollar lobbying effort to derail broadband reform, taking guarantees of a free and open Internet with it.

The advertisement’s appearance is remarkable, coming at the same time the company’s “government affairs” team of paid lobbyists and friends are browbeating elected officials and the Federal Communications Commission.  AT&T wants the right to allow preferential treatment of its selected content partners while dumping everyone else on the Internet slow lane.

The only opening AT&T supports is a new way to cash in even further on the Internet.  An “open network” to the phone giant means one that is totally deregulated and open to whatever AT&T wants to do with it.

AT&T’s “innovation” is to monetize the traffic that happens to cross their network on its way to AT&T customers.  By manipulating broadband traffic, AT&T will sell its “selected partners” priority access, shoving uncompensated traffic out of the way to make room for whatever AT&T’s special friends want you to see.  While that’s great news for companies that agree to pay AT&T’s tolls, it’s very bad news for everyone else, because the websites you choose to visit may or may not be available on the second rate “free lane.”  Given the choice between AT&T-backed video streaming or a third party provider like Netflix, guess what traffic will never get stuck “buffering” or face glitches.

Investors love the concept because AT&T can collect revenue just by sitting back and demanding tolls from content they neither produce nor host.  It’s not as if they haven’t been paid already — by their customers — to obtain access to that content.  AT&T wants another payday for their shareholders while sticking you with second-rate service.

The problem with AT&T’s world view is… AT&T’s world view.  Real innovation would mean delivering customers a world class broadband service the envy of anyone, delivered on America’s most advanced communications network, not re-purposed copper wire phone lines.  Then, “traffic management” on a mega-sized information highway wouldn’t have to squeeze the speed of some traffic to make room for “premium content.”  There would be plenty of room for one and all.

AT&T’s proposed answer for broadband reform is all about their interests, never yours.

America already experienced a corporate-sanitized online experience with preferred content partners. It was called Prodigy, and by 2000 it was fed to 77 million SBC (later AT&T) customers.

Some examples:

• Net Neutrality has been a part of AT&T’s corporate life for several years as a condition of its 2005 merger with SBC.  It didn’t harm their ability to provide all of the innovation, service, and speeds they could have, but never did.  Nothing about Net Neutrality protection harms AT&T’s ability to deliver broadband service to more of its customers. Giving AT&T whatever it wants won’t change that fact or deliver service to a single new customer;
• The freedom AT&T writes about is their idea of a Corporate Bill of Rights, which grants them the freedom to exchange their ideas and content, but says nothing about protecting your freedom of speech;
• A robust and secure network should exist regardless of Net Neutrality, considering the enormous amount of cash AT&T harvests from their Internet customers month after month.  AT&T is free to innovate all they like, on a level-playing-field, where customers can choose the best applications at the best prices, not the ones AT&T provides to them on a paid fast lane;
• AT&T’s record on competition is laughable when it spends its free cash on an army of lobbyists and “dollar-a-holler” interest groups.  Their mission?  To oppose potential competitors and enthusiastically support AT&T’s competition-busting mergers and acquisitions that further concentrate their market power;
• For AT&T’s customers, transparency alone is hardly the kind of consumer protection Internet users need.  Yes, it’s nice to be told when you are overpaying for broadband service that is “network managed.” Admitting AT&T seeks to throttle broadband speeds and potentially block websites in a monopoly/duopoly market doesn’t help much when customers can’t find another provider.  Disclosing the fact AT&T is sticking it to you is not the same thing as prohibiting them from trying in the first place.

AT&T has no interest in working with anyone that opposes their corporate interests.

The Internet should not be AT&T’s personal playground, ready and able to be “managed” out of its unique ability to deliver ideas equally — to be judged on their merit — not on the money backing them.

Americans have already experienced a corporate-sanitized online service for pre-approved ideas, products, and services.  It was called Prodigy, and by 2000 it was to become the Internet experience for 77 million SBC (later AT&T) customers. By the time the bottom fell out in 2001, SBC owned 100 percent of the service nobody wanted.  In 2005, SBC tried to sell the Prodigy brand in the United States.  There were no buyers.

That should be the outcome of AT&T’s proposal for “an open Internet.”  No deal.

The dollar-a-holler crowd that takes “charitable” contributions from Comcast is enjoying an abundance of riches thanks to your cable bill payment and their corporate agenda to get the NBC-Comcast merger approved. Everyone is coming out to celebrate the deal — from the United Way in Denver to a Texas sheriff and a group opposing grave desecration.  Regular Stop the Cap! reader Bones sent word Comcast’s Money Party is just getting started.

The Wrap notes Comcast has donated $1.8 billion in cash and in-kind largess to non-profit organizations since 2001, many of which will helpfully throw 44 cents back in the form of supportive letters to the Federal Communications Commission telling them to do whatever America’s largest cable company wants.

It’s all a part of the dirty little game some non-profits play with corporate benefactors to work against your consumer interests.  Even worse, many of these same groups will also ask -you- for a donation as well.  If Comcast keeps raising its rates, perhaps the best option in response to those playing on Comcast’s side is to tell them you already sent a donation… to Comcast.

This year’s circus of money has generated a torrent of correspondence to the FCC that is often nothing less than absurd.

The Wrap found one letter from the president of the Washington, D.C.-based Cherry Blossom Festival.  Did you know cherry blossoms were deeply committed to seeing Comcast and NBC get married?

“Over the past few years, Comcast has generously donated services and sponsorship to our events,” Diana Mayhew, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Cherry Blossom Festival, wrote to the Federal Communications Commission in July. “I believe as Comcast teams up with NBC, it will continue to be a great partner for the Cherry Blossom Festival.”

But it gets much sillier.

Stop the Cap! has compiled just a sampler of comments from several interest groups all in a hurry to get their letters into the public record.  Most were bad, but we also include an example of a letter from a group that didn’t simply applaud the deal.  Our comments are in italics:

National Puerto Rican Coalition: “In our view, […] this joint venture will lead to valuable benefits and unprecedented advances in media diversity for Hispanics and other people of color.”

Do you think the fact NPRC also received valuable funding from the Comcast Foundation might have had something to do with their cheerleading letter?

Cuban American National Council
Hispanic Federation
League of United Latin American Citizens
National Council of La Raza
National Hispanic Media Coalition
SER-Jobs For Progress National, Inc.: “We strongly believe that the Memorandum of Understanding between Comcast and NBCU and the Hispanic Leadership organizations seeks to promote the goals of expanding economic opportunity for Hispanic families and preserving and enhancing programming for Hispanic audiences, and view these commitments as stepping stones to a more responsive and responsible corporate citizenry.”

These groups, many of which also receive direct funding from Comcast, went over the top cooking up a “Memorandum of Understanding” (or is it a shakedown agreement) to land positions on Comcast’s “Advisory Councils.”  These Latino groups managed to get their travel and other expenses paid for by Comcast to attend twice-yearly meetings to discuss diversity issues.  Their agreement also allows this coalition to empower itself, by getting Comcast to agree to call them when looking for “qualified” Latino law firms, suppliers and vendors, and even top management.  That provides these groups power and influence as interested candidates appeal to them to gain a spot on the “qualified” list.  But it goes even further — Comcast has to add several “qualified” (identified with the help of these groups) Latino-owned cable channels to the lineup whether subscribers want them or not.

This agreement was marked “confidential,” but you can read a copy right here.  By the way, it’s no surprise the League of United Latin American Citizens is on this list.  They’ll peddle themselves out to any Big Telecom company that comes with a check in hand, especially AT&T.

Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (“GLAAD”): “Given the weight and significance of the Comcast/NBCU merger, GLAAD urges the FCC to ensure that the community of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans are not forgotten in its calculus of diversity, and that the stories and visibility of LGBT people and their families are held up as part of the valued diversity in its discussions, analysis and recommendations in this merger.

GLAAD’s filing was an example of a respectable comment letter filed by a minority interest group.  They didn’t take a strong position for or against the merger.  Instead, they shined a light on the issues that concern the LGBT community and said the FCC should take a closer look.  That’s fair and appropriate.

Hmong New Life Radio Broadcasting
Hmong Women’s Heritage Association
Hmong Report At 7
Lao Family Community of Fresno
Sacramento Asian-American Minority, Inc.
National Hmong Grave Desecration Committee: “We believe Comcast’s sensitivity to our need for such programming speaks extremely well of them as a company. It is a clear indication that they will continue to exhibit their sense of the responsibility to underserved communities such as ours subsequent to a merger with NBC-Universal.”

These six groups must be new to the influence game because they each sent nearly identical (often word for word) letters to the FCC in support of the merger.  On the ludicrous scale, nothing beats the National Hmong Grave Desecration Committee finding itself compelled to write a formal letter to the FCC on a multi-billion dollar cable-broadcast merger.

Here's something to remember us by....

Mile High United Way: “Comcast has provided sizeable foundation grants for DRH projects and other meaningful financial donations to other United Way programs. In addition to philanthropy and volunteerism, the company has also provided us with top notch communications support. The company has helped us create video presentations for our key fundraising efforts; it has placed public service announcements on its cable stations in an attempt generate attention and attendance for our events; it has also provided time on its Comcast Newsmakers public service broadcast to publicize our events, our programs and our people.”

That’s all wonderful, but none of it justifies or even argues for a merger between a cable and television network.  This is nothing more than dollar-a-holler advocacy at work — United Way gets goodies from Comcast and now they are returning the favor.  What United Way won’t get from our family is another nickle.  After all, our contributions to United Way pay for this group’s time and effort peddling Comcast’s corporate agenda to the FCC.  And I thought the United Way was supposed to be a charitable organization, not a lobbyist advocating for Comcast.

Sheriff Adrian Garcia – Harris County (Tex.): “Comcast is not just a business operating in Harris County, it is a partner in our effort to be a better and safer community. I hope the FCC will keep all that Comcast does in mind and permit the NBC Universal partnership to move forward.”

Voters in Harris County might want to keep this letter in mind come election time.  This shockingly inappropriate involvement by a law enforcement agency willing to stick its nose in a corporate merger is inexcusable.  Perhaps Harris County needs a sheriff that will spend time fighting crime, not typing up letters to benefit the cable company.  Oh, and by the way Sheriff — Comcast really is just a business.

The National Zoo: “In sum, Comcast has proven to be a reliable partner that cares about our work here at the Zoo in promoting innovative science, educating children, and ultimately establishing a beautiful urban park offering families excitement as well as a welcome place to enjoy nature. We deeply care about our engagement with our local friends and families here in Washington, D.C. and appreciate the fact that Comcast shares our commitment to serving the local community.”

That’s grand, but has nothing to do with a corporate merger proposal.  Comcast’s subscribers are the ones who ultimately care about the Zoo.  It’s their money that paves the way for all those good works.

Center for the Homeless: “I hope you will consider this testimony in favor of Comcast and its strong sense of involvement in American communities and service to those who need it most. Comcast is a true partner in the important work that we do.”

Another group whose mission should be helping the homeless is devoting time and resources to sending love notes to the FCC on behalf of a giant cable company.  By the way, none of the clients your group serves can afford Comcast’s prices.

Partnership for a Drug Free New Jersey: “I look forward to our continued partnership with Comcast and am excited to welcome NBC onto their team. We will continue to reach teens all over New Jersey to help ensure that they remain drug-free and continue to bring the message of hope to so many of our state’s residents.”

The excitement is even greater when you recognize Comcast and the national umbrella group Partnership for a Drug Free America can’t thank each other enough.  The non-profit explained it all in a newsletter: “At the Partnership’s third annual Making A Difference gala held this winter in the Grand Ballroom of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, more than 850 guests gathered to honor Ralph J. Roberts, founder and chairman of the executive and finance committee for the Comcast Corporation, and his son, Brian L. Roberts, chairman & CEO of Comcast. Chairing the gala were Geraldine B. Laybourne, chairman & CEO of Oxygen Media and James B. Lee, Jr., vice chairman of JPMorgan Chase & Co. […] The evening generated over $2.1 million to support the Partnership’s programs for children, parents and families.”

The accolades should have stopped at a “thank you” card, not with the unseemly way this group returns the favor by advocating for a merger deal involving one of their benefactors.

Verizon and Google have reached an agreement in principle to deal away Net Neutrality protections for American broadband users according to a late report in today’s Washington Post.

Cecilia King writes the agreement is days away from being revealed in public, but two sources verified Verizon and Google have agreed to a split the difference on Net Neutrality — abandoning the open Internet concept for wireless broadband, but protecting against service providers holding bidding auctions over the speed of web content delivery.

Verizon wouldn’t confirm that a deal was struck but said in an e-mail statement:

“We’ve been working with Google for 10 months to reach an agreement on broadband policy. We are currently engaged in and committed to the negotiation process led by the FCC. We are optimistic this process will reach a consensus that can maintain an open Internet and the investment and innovation required to sustain it.”

Specifically, Google and Verizon’s agreement would prevent Verizon from offering paid prioritization to the biggest bidders for capacity on its DSL and fiber networks, according to the sources. But any promises regarding open-Internet access wouldn’t apply to mobile phones, the sources said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the companies have not officially made their announcement.

And Verizon could offer managed services — better quality to some Web sites such as those offering health care services, the sources said. But some analysts speculate that managed services could also include discounted YouTube and other services to FiOS customers at better quality.

Public interest groups, some occasionally accused of being in bed with Google, were outraged at the news.

“The fate of the Internet is too large a matter to be decided by negotiations involving two companies, even companies as big as Verizon and Google, or even the six companies and groups engaged in other discussions at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on similar topics,” said Gigi Sohn, president of public interest group Public Knowledge.

The clear distancing from Google’s settlement illustrates these pro-consumer groups are not simply shilling for Google’s public policy positions.

For Stop the Cap!, the implications are extremely disturbing.  As outlined, this compromise deal would relegate wireless broadband to usage caps, speed throttles, and content blockades indefinitely.  Should “improved quality” service on the wired side be an available option, it could allow the broadband industry to mount a devastating campaign to end would-be competitors, especially to their video businesses.  Cable and phone companies could pick winners and losers (with their products being the winners, and would-be competitors the losers) by prioritizing high quality video services, exempting their partners from Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, and subjecting would-be, “non-preferred” content providers to usage and speed-restricted broadband lines.

Offering preferred content producers discounted rates would also completely change the business models of content distribution and discourage investment in would-be challengers that could provide consumers with other video options.

More importantly, it provides an example of an Obama Administration ruthlessly willing to cut consumers out of the debate about Net Neutrality, while forcing them to live with the results.  King notes the priorities of Google and Verizon don’t exactly include consumers:

According to the sources, Verizon and Google have met separately to reach an agreement they will tout as an example of successful self-regulation. Once bitter opponents in the so-called net neutrality debate, the firms have grown closer on the issue as their business ties have also strengthened. Verizon partners with Google on their Android wireless phones.

Their actions could set a course for the FCC meetings and what ultimately the parties could present to lawmakers, analysts said.

Voluntary self-regulation worked so well with Wall Street banks and the housing market that a disconnected crowd inside the beltway is willing to give it another try with a broadband industry that is already a duopoly for most consumers.  Psychic abilities are not required to guess at the eventual outcome.

Update 12:30pm — The denials are flying over a NY Times piece that claims Google has agreed to pay Verizon’s asking price for prioritized traffic:

Google: “The New York Times is quite simply wrong. We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open internet.”

Verizon: “The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken. It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect.”

More dollar-a-holler advocacy for AT&T in the pages of CNET. AT&T brings the money, lobbyists ride their former credentials to deliver exactly the "facts" AT&T wants to read.

CNET last week shamefully handed over column space to a barely-disclosed AT&T lobbyist trotting out the latest unfounded, anti-consumer nonsense: tiered data plans help bring broadband to the poor.

It’s all part of AT&T’s Re-education campaign to sucker convince Americans that paying more for less service is a good thing:

New analysis shows that as Internet providers ramp up their investments to accommodate the surge in bandwidth demand, the old, one-price-for-everybody model would slow our progress toward universal adoption, especially by lower-income Americans.

The first reaction of many Internet users to this news may well be disbelief. How can it be that a pricing approach that has worked so well for so many years can suddenly become obsolete and even counterproductive? The answer is that technological advances have changed what many of us do online, which, in turn, has changed the economics.

A techno-ecosystem once dominated by e-mail and text now is increasingly characterized by high-definition video that claims up to 1,000 times as much network capacity and bandwidth as simple text. The way we currently pay for the infrastructure required to keep the network humming also will have to change.

The only humming we hear is AT&T’s dollar bill-counting machines.

When at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.  Robert J. Shapiro and his co-author Kevin Hassett’s latest work, “A New Analysis of Broadband Adoption Rates By Minority Households,” is simply a rehash — spoiled leftover bologna — of their last bought-and-paid-for-study we analyzed last fall.  Both reports are tailor-made to appeal to the minority-interest groups that are part of AT&T’s Rainbow Coalition of Cash — groups that engage in dollar-a-holler advocacy of AT&T’s agenda while quietly depositing their substantial contribution checks.

The report assumes quite a lot:

• That broadband service adoption rates in minority communities are too low because heavy users are artificially keeping broadband prices too high;
• That without tiered data plans, AT&T can never afford to expand broadband service;
• That unlimited broadband tiers can never co-exist with tiered plans — it’s one-size-fits-all under today’s bad pricing model;
• That a grand exaflood is coming to swamp broadband users of all kinds, and without tiered pricing to finance upgrades, we could all drown.

For the second time, Shapiro and Hassett try to stick the bill for upgrades on so-called “heavy users,” who they suggest should pay 80 percent of the upgrade costs through higher priced broadband service.  They also want content producers to cough up — the “they can’t use my pipes for free”-argument AT&T loves.

How will customers react to paying huge surcharges on their broadband bills?  According to the report’s authors, heavy users won’t mind because they are “price-insensitive.”

Ask Time Warner Cable customers in New York, Texas, and North Carolina if they minded the prospect of paying $150 a month for broadband service they used to pay $50 a month to receive.  How about Frontier’s customers in Mound, Minnesota asked to pony up $250 a month for up to 3Mbps DSL service because they exceeded Frontier’s 5GB monthly usage allowance?

The report has several other glaring fact-gaps:

• Tiered service plans are already available industry-wide, based on broadband speed, not usage.  Low income customers can obtain cheaper broadband today, if companies decide to advertise it;
• The wounds from high broadband pricing are industry self-inflicted.  They charge $40 or more for a service their financial reports suggest costs less than $10 a month to provide;
• Providers can achieve universal broadband first by extending existing networks to rural America, upgrading them to fiber as the economy of scale from urban and suburban upgrades forces prices down;
• The authors strenuously avoid reviewing providers’ financial reports which show enormous profits even as costs continue their rapid decline;
• Many of the footnotes used to back their arguments turn out to quote self-interested parties like service providers, equipment manufacturers, and trade associations.

None of this is surprising or new in bought-and-paid-for-reports commissioned by companies to cheerlead their corporate agenda.  The last thing AT&T wants to read is a recitation of facts that disprove their arguments.

In essence, Shapiro and Hassett are arguing (with a straight face) that if providers are allowed to charge some consumers dramatically higher prices for broadband service, it will somehow convince them to upgrade their networks -and- trickle down lower prices for economically-challenged consumers.

Maybe if we let BP drill more oil wells in the Gulf, the extra profits they earn will somehow lead to better safety records for drilling and lower gas prices.  After all, with those record-busting profits earned over the past three years, the safety record for the industry is better than ever and gas is sold at fire sale prices, benefiting economically disadvantaged Americans, right?

If you or I argued this theory, we’d be drug tested.  For corporate lobbyists, it’s just another day at the office.

Here’s just how silly this really is:  You just discovered your hard drive is nearly full.  You’ve gone shopping for an upgrade, planning to spend around $100 for a new drive.  Just a few years ago, you spent around that much for a 120GB model.  Today, that same $99 would today buy you a 1.5 terabyte drive, unless you bought it from AT&T.  They want $1,500.

Newegg's price: $99.95 -- AT&T's price: $1,500

You: “Why is this drive so expensive?”

AT&T: “Over 90 percent of our customers never need a drive bigger than 120 gigabytes.  Developing a 1.5 terabyte drive costs plenty, and we feel that because you are a heavy user, you should bear the brunt of the development and manufacturing costs of all hard drives.”

You: “Sure, but this same 1.5TB drive is available in Korea for $99 dollars.  You want $1,500.  Why is there such a price difference and when does your price come down?”

AT&T: “Poor people in Korea and America can’t afford even a 60 gigabyte drive.  We are trying to make smaller drives more affordable  so in turn you should pay a higher price.  This isn’t about when AT&T will lower our price, it’s about when you will see our grand charitable vision and lower your selfish expectation of a lower price.”

You: “Wow, a corporation with socially-conscious pricing to benefit the poor?  So you are telling me that when I spend $1,500 on this hard drive, it is going to subsidize the cost of their 60 gigabyte drive, right?”

AT&T: “No, not exactly.  See, if we didn’t charge you $1,500, we’d have to raise the price on their 60 gigabyte drive and that’s not fair because they don’t need to store as much as you do.”

You: “But wait, your ‘subsidized’ 60GB drive costs three times more than what Koreans spend for a drive at least three times larger.”

AT&T: “That’s because the standard of living is different there.  Besides, why do you want to make the poor pay for your hard drive?”

You: “You aren’t making any sense.”

AT&T: “But we are about to make a whole lot of dollars!”

Dumping unlimited usage pricing only sets the profit expectations-bar higher for the broadband industry on Wall Street, regardless of what the true costs are to provide the service.  Wall Street never argues that excess profits should be spent on network upgrades and price subsidies to the poor — they want those profits paid to shareholders instead.

When the telecom industry is paying for your study, real facts never matter.  If you want them to do future business with your lobbying firm, the only acceptable conclusion is the one AT&T wants you to reach.

Tomorrow: Down the Sonecon rabbit hole

Davey D

It’s gratifying to know we are not alone in recognizing the parade of minority interest groups on the dole of big telecom companies who are only too willing to parrot their talking points to strike down pro-consumer broadband reform.

Davey D, a journalist, educator, columnist and Hip Hop activist originally from the Bronx who now lives and works in Oakland where does a daily radio show – Hard Knock Radio (KPFA 94.1 FM) is pondering why so many groups are so willing to sell out their constituents:

One of the strategies used by AT&T was to go to communities of color, find Civil Rights organizations and in my humble opinion and pay for their silence or advocacy. The list ranged from LULAC to the Urban League which filed briefs siding with the FCC. It makes no sense why organizations which have long spoke about not having voice their voices heard and a seat at the table would go along with any sort of policy that strip that away from the average person who found such an opportunity via the Internet.

Was having sponsorship dollars for the next awards banquet payment enough? Or a some computers for an after school program payment enough? We’re talking about intelligent people here. It would be absolutely trifling to sell out for something that low and glaringly obvious.

Stop the Cap! exchanged views last week with one such “coalition of the willing to take the check” that claims to represent the interests of Latinos, but won’t answer basic questions about how much they got and from what phone or cable company.

Sylvia Aguilera, representing the Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership, which itself is made up of several groups cashing AT&T’s checks, chided me for my earlier remarks, “HTTP supports reasoned dialogue on the issues and remains dismayed by those, like you, who stoop to categorizing esteemed minority organizations as “astro-turf’. You will gain no allies in our communities with this strategy.”

Our response was to ask Aguilera to come clean on whether HTTP was also getting AT&T money and how much.  No response.  That speaks volumes, of course.  Aguilera makes the mistaken assumption that groups that actually represent consumers are interested in allying themselves with “dollar a holler” advocacy groups like those that make up the HTTP.  Latino readers of Stop the Cap! wondered where HTTP was when Time Warner Cable was testing Internet Overcharging schemes on their Road Runner service in Austin and San Antonio, Texas.  Unlike so many Net Neutrality foes in the not-for-profit community, Stop the Cap! doesn’t take industry money and is 100 percent supported by individual consumers.

Our contention is reasonable dialogue is impossible on telecommunications issues when some of that speech is bought and paid for by AT&T.  In other words, HTTP and its coalition members’ views on this specific issue are nothing more than astroturf and won’t carry much legitimacy in the eyes of consumers as long as AT&T is still cutting them checks.  Return the money, refuse to accept contributions that represent a conflict of interest on public policy debates, and then the reasoned dialogue can actually begin.

Now does this mean these kinds of groups do no good?  Of course not.  I’m sure they have projects that are valuable and important to their respective community interests.  But having come from the non-profit sector myself, I am also well aware of what some groups are willing to do to raise funds, and they aren’t fooling me for a second, nor should they you.

Davey D sums it up:

Below is a list of Civil Rights orgs that submitted files to the FCC saying they wanted to have the internet DEREGULATED. When your s*it starts slowing down, your message filtered or censored, your music hard to access and more importantly your fees go up, give these esteemed organizations and people a call and ask them how they intend to correct what will go down as a egregious error. Maybe they can let you use their accounts cause I’m certain in exchange for siding with these big telecoms they got a few perks including unfettered and fast lane access.

Here are recent anti-Network Neutrality filings by organizations of color

(There are more and I will post them later.)

Urban League Chapter

Click to access 7020408309.pdf

Click to access 7020400790.pdf

Click to access 7020400568.pdf

Click to access 7020408157.pdf

Click to access 7020400510.pdf

National Lesbian and Gay Chamber of Commerce

Click to access 7020408718.pdf

Hispanic Federation

Click to access 7020408716.pdf

LISTA

Click to access 7020408720.pdf

Latino community Foundation in San Francisco

Click to access 7020408354.pdf

Native Americans

Click to access 7020408711.pdf

Click to access 7020408291.pdf

Click to access 7020408712.pdf

Click to access 7020408709.pdf

Click to access 7020408717.pdf

Click to access 7020408708.pdf

Click to access 7020408713.pdf

NAACP in California

Click to access 7020408307.pdf

Rainbow Push

Click to access 7020408211.pdf

Texas State Rep. Robert Alonzo

Click to access 7020408179.pdf

MANA, A National Latino Organization

Click to access 7020400566.pdf

100 Black Men of South Metro

Click to access 7020400798.pdf

100 Black Men of Mobile

Click to access 7020401015.pdf

100 Black Men of Greater Mobile

Click to access 7020401015.pdf

ASPIRA

Click to access 7020400339.pdf

100 Black Men of Tennessee

Click to access 7020400506.pdf

100 Black Men of Orlando

Click to access 7020400502.pdf

HTTP

Click to access 7020400970.pdf

Hispanic Interests Coalition of Alabama

Click to access 7020401020.pdf

SER: Jobs for Progress

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020400060

NAACP Mar-Saline Branch

Click to access 7020399888.pdf

Japanese American Citizens League

Click to access 7020399819.pdf

Organization of Chinese Americans

Click to access 7020399334.pdf

Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies

Rep. Yvette Clarke

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7020399667.pdf