Customers of Vistabeam in Nebraska and Wyoming who subscribe to the company’s rural Wireless Internet Service are about to discover their online activities are about to be capped… for real this time.

Matthew Larsen, who runs the Wireless Cowboys blog, includes some illustrative examples of Internet Overcharging schemes in action and what they’re all about.  He writes about his experiences at Vistabeam, which serves rural Nebraska and Wyoming with wireless broadband service.  The company started operations with an admittedly-unenforced 3GB usage limit, backed up with a stinging $25/GB penalty overlimit fee to underscore the point.  Today that cap is described by Larsen as “a joke” — too low to be taken seriously.  [Note to Frontier: Are you reading this?]

But the company was determined to monitor and measure its customers’ online activities and developed an in-house tool that is providing daily insights into customer usage, and gives Vistabeam the ability to begin penalizing customers who exceed the limits established by the provider.

Wireless providers, known as WISPs, often provide the only Internet access in rural areas that are too sparsely populated to deliver DSL service and where cable television is a financial impracticality.  For Nebraska and Wyoming residents bypassed by cable and underserved by DSL (if at all), it’s often a choice between dial-up, satellite fraudband service barely capable of 1Mbps service with a punitive “fair access policy,” or an independent WISP.  A number of customers have chosen the latter.

Vistabeam offers service plans for its 2000 customers ranging from 384kbps for $29.95 a month to 4Mbps service for $99.95 a month, with a discount for paying in six month increments.  That’s not cheap by any means.  But rural Americans routinely face higher broadband bills because of the inability of providers to achieve economy of scale.  Fewer customers have to share the expenses to construct, operate and maintain the service.

But those bills could soon grow even higher if customers exceed the new harder-line Vistabeam will take on usage cap offenses.

Larsen’s measurements identified what their customers were doing with their broadband connections and identified Vistabeam’s biggest users:

Out of 2000+ customers, 80 used more than 10 gigs for the month.

One customer – a 1 meg subscriber at the far eastern edge of our network, behind seven wireless hops and on an 802.11b AP – downloaded 140gig.

Another one, on the far western side of our network, downloaded 110gig.   We called them and found out that they were watching a ton of online video.

We discovered a county government connection that was around 100gig – mostly because someone in the sheriff’s department was pounding for BitTorrent files from 1am to 7am in the morning, and sometimes crashing their firewall machine because of the traffic.

One wonders what the sheriff’s department was grabbing off BitTorrent, but the question itself opens the door as to whether or not your provider (and by extension, you and I) should know what they are doing with their broadband connection in the first place.

Larsen says the other subscribers on his list were watching lots of online video, had a virus, or had “mistakenly” left their file sharing programs running.

Larsen’s solution is usage caps and overlimit penalties for his subscribers.

A home equipped with a WISP antenna on the roof

Package                                                               Monthly Download Cap

384k                                                                       10 gigabytes

640k                                                                       10 gigabytes

1 meg                                                                    20 gigabytes

2 meg                                                                    40 gigabytes

3 meg                                                                    50 gigabytes

4 meg                                                                    60 gigabytes

8 meg                                                                    80 gigabytes

Additional capacity over cap                        $1 per gigabyte over the cap

Although Larsen claims the cap and the overlimit fee isn’t “a profit center,” it would be disingenuous to suggest it isn’t about the money (underline emphasis ours):

I feel that these caps are more than generous, and should have a minimal effect on the majority of our customers.   With our backbone consumption per customer increasing, implementing caps of some kind became a necessity.    I am not looking at the caps as a new “profit center” – they are a deterrent as much as anything.    It will provide an incentive for customers to upgrade to a faster plan with a higher cap, or take their download habits to a competitor and chew up someone else’s bandwidth.

Customers upgrading to a faster plan have to pay a correspondingly higher price for that service and taking their “download habits to a competitor” reduces the cost for the provider no longer encumbered with serving the higher-usage-than-average customer now heading for the door.  Among his 2,000 customers, the end effect will be what Larsen himself hopes is a deterrent for customers using increasingly common higher bandwidth applications like online video, file backup, and uploading and downloading files.  Larsen himself admits that one of his customers was a little bit upset to be told he was using too much.

Rural providers do face higher costs to provide service than their urban counterparts.  But before they enjoy any benefits from Universal Service Fund reform or other government-provided stimulus, customer-unfriendly Internet Overcharging schemes should not be part of the deal.

West Virginia residents are assured of an indefinite future with 1-3Mbps usage-capped “broadband” as Frontier won conditional approval of its plan to assume control of the majority of the state’s landlines.

Frontier Communications, the phone company with the 5 gigabyte monthly acceptable usage allowance, won approval from West Virginia’s Public Service Commission after nearly a year of opposition from several unions and consumer advocacy groups.  The opposition, led by the Communications Workers of America, charged that Frontier’s balance sheet made it impossible for the company to fulfill promises to deliver quality phone and broadband service to the majority of the state’s residents.  Consumer groups, including Stop the Cap!, argued Frontier’s DSL broadband service is inadequate for the state’s needs, because it typically only provides 1-3Mbps speed and is usage-limited for residential customers.

Verizon’s history of bad service in the state helped drive some to believe Frontier can do better

Verizon’s West Virginia division has frequently achieved a poor rating among many West Virginians upset with the company’s service record and broadband deployment.  Last Monday, the PSC announced that Verizon’s service in the state was so poor, it ordered the company to place $72.4 million in an irrevocable escrow account to be used to improve the quality of service.  The PSC found Verizon’s disinterest in delivering service in West Virginia had resulted in the deterioration of Verizon’s essential infrastructure.

The PSC-ordered escrow account will be used to maintain and improve everything from restoring copper wiring to vegetation control and pole replacement.

With a history of complaints like that, it comes as no surprise West Virginians are ready to wave goodbye to Verizon, hoping for better times with Frontier Communications.

Bray Cary

Bray Cary, a TV station owner in West Virginia, has hosted editorials on his network of local stations across the state promoting the transaction, believing it will bring a better future for the state’s telecommunications needs.  Just two weeks ago, he demanded the PSC make a decision on the proposed merger, claiming the state needs a “modern, cutting edge communication system that will bring high-speed Internet to every corner of this state.”  Unfortunately for Cary, there is nothing from Frontier that comes close to “cutting edge,” with the exception of the company’s brazen Internet Overcharging scheme now being tested in Minnesota that threatens to bring $250 monthly broadband bills to some residents.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOWK Charleston State Must Act on Verizon-Frontier Deal 5-4-10.flv[/flv]

WOWK-TV’s Bray Cary criticized the West Virginia Public Service Commission for stalling on a decision to move forward the Verizon-Frontier landline transfer in the state.  Just about ten days later, the PSC conditionally approved the deal.  [Video problems were a part of the original clip] (Aired: May 4, 2010 — 1 minute)

Frontier specializes in delivering slow-speed DSL service to most of its rural service areas, usually less than 3Mbps in speed.  Even in its largest service area, Rochester, N.Y., the company’s broadband options are an also-ran against the far faster and more reliable cable modem service from Time Warner Cable, which also beats Frontier’s out-the-door price.

Unfortunately, West Virginian media has never given important details to residents about the specific services Frontier is willing and able to offer residential customers.  It also never informed customers about the important limitations the company attaches to its “high speed Internet” Cary hopes to see available in every corner of the state.

Sometimes change for change’s sake is not an improvement.

The PSC attaches conditions to its approval

The Commission did not grant blanket approval to the transaction.  The PSC is requiring that Frontier:

• Honors all existing obligations of Verizon following the close of the sale, including the currently effective Retail Quality Service Plan approved by the Commission to continue through at least July 2, 2011.
• Makes capital investments in Verizon of $30 million during the second half of 2010, $75 million in 2011 (including $12 million targeted at service quality), $63 million in 2012 and $63 million in 2013.
• Makes additional capital investments of at least $48 million to increase broadband deployment and subscription in the Verizon service territory.
• Expands broadband availability in Verizon service areas so that by no later than the end of the fourth year following the close of the sale, access to broadband service will be available to no less than 85 percent of the households within Verizon service areas.
• Locates its Southeast regional headquarters in Charleston, WV, after closing the sale. Charleston will be Frontier’s Southeastern regional headquarters, and will be a major employment center for Frontier in the region. It will be the hub for engineering, technical, operation and executive personnel for Frontier’s operations in West Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
• Adopts all of Verizon’s tariffs, price lists and contracts, including long distance, under the same terms and conditions at closing.
• Caps all regulated rates subject to jurisdiction of the Commission for one year after close of the transaction.
• Provides E-911 functionality provided by Verizon prior to close.
• Waives early termination fees for current Verizon customers participating in a Verizon bundled service package for the first 90 days after closing.

Reactions from all over

“We’re pleased the commission has approved the transaction. The record developed in this case provides comprehensive evidence and assurances that the transaction with Frontier Communications is in the public interest and will provide many benefits to West Virginia residents, including increased investment and broadband availability in the state, while protecting jobs and promoting employment.”

— Verizon-West Virginia President B. Keith Fulton

“We’re in the process of evaluating the order. After full review we’ll look at what we can do that will best serve West Virginia consumers and CWA members. Of course, we’re disappointed but we’re heartened by the fact that at least one person on the three-member commission agreed with us and more than 80 legislators, several county commissions and a broad coalition of consumer, union and first responder organizations that this deal is too risky and not in the public’s interest. The split decision shows our arguments about the deal had validity.”

— Communications Workers of America, District 2 Vice President Ron Collins

Byron L. Harris heads the Consumer Advocate Division of the West Virginia Public Service Commission

“There are many areas of West Virginia that will always be dependent on landlines, absent some sea of change in technology. Those are the people I’m most concerned about. They’re the truly captive customers of now Verizon and, in the future, Frontier.”

— West Virginia Public Service Commission’s consumer advocate Byron Harris

“We’ve seen how Wall Street’s investments can backfire. Like Frontier today, Wall Street once put its confidence in Global Crossing and that led to a disastrous bankruptcy. We’re concerned that the Rochester-area and other existing Frontier properties may be starved to fund this expansion.”

— John Pusloskie, President of CWA Local 1170 in Rochester, N.Y.

“Today’s approval is a welcome and important step. Our goal is to gain the approval of the FCC so that we can close the transaction and begin bringing its benefits to consumers and businesses.”

— Maggie Wilderotter, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Frontier

West Virginian media covers the conditional approval

A handful of television stations covered the conditional approval, most without much depth.  West Virginian newspapers covered the fight between Verizon and Frontier and the unions and consumer groups, but no paper really provided in-depth coverage into the challenges of West Virginia broadband and what precisely Frontier is capable of providing to solve it.  Consumers will discover soon enough that West Virginia has yet again gotten the short end of the online stick.  Only this time, they better not wave it around too much — it might exceed your monthly stick-waving allowance.

[flv width=”500″ height=”395″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOWK Charleston Union – Verizon-Frontier Deal Bad for W.Va., Verizon Responds 5-14-10.flv[/flv]

WOWK-TV in Charleston delivered the most substantial report on the sale, including this brief interview with PSC spokeswoman Sarah Robertson.  (2 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTAP Parkersburg Verizon-Frontier Deal Approved 5-14-10.flv[/flv]

WTAP-TV in Parkersburg ran this brief in-studio report about the Verizon-Frontier approval.  (1 minute)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WDTV Bridgeport Verizon Sells Land Lines to Frontier 5-14-10.mp4[/flv]

WDTV-TV in Bridgeport explained the requirements of the conditional approval.  This was the only report on the approval that included the opposition’s perspective.  (1 minute)

Telekom Malaysia

A scheme to impose usage limits and speed throttles on Telekom Malaysia’s broadband customers was beaten back just a day after the plan was announced.

Malaysia’s largest telecommunications company announced the limitations at the same time in introduced new speed tiers and new pricing for them.

Customers were not pleased when they discovered TM’s UniFi broadband service came with high prices and usage caps:

TM UniFi Broadband Packages

• 5/5Mbps Service RM149/$46.73 now capped at 60GB per month.
• 10/10Mbps Service RM199/$62.41 now capped at 90GB per month.
• 20/20Mbps Service RM249/$78.09 now capped at 120GB per month.

In comparison, residents in nearby Singapore can buy 100Mbps service, with no limit, for RM200/$62.73 per month.

Those who exceed the limits would find their speeds throttled to about 10 percent of the speed they purchased, for the rest of the month.

Telekom Malaysia CEO Datuk Zamzamzairani Mohd Isa said the measures were part of its Fair Usage Policy.

Dato’ Zamzamzairani

“This policy is a standard industry practice to ensure that all subscribers get to enjoy the same web surfing quality,” he said.

Only it’s not standard industry practice, despite that often-heard excuse.  In countries where usage limits are common, those limits are being eased or discontinued as broadband expansion and competition drives the unpopular usage limits out of the market.

Malaysians weren’t willing to wait.

The social media firestorm of protest that followed the announcement forced the company to back down just one day after announcing the Internet Overcharging scheme.

An announcement on Twitter, noting customer feedback, stated “no volume cap 4 all #unifi packages 4 now.”  The company did say it would continue to “reserve the right to enforce a download limit to ensure all UniFi subscribers receive equal service quality,” but that type of language has been standard in service provider agreements for years.

Company officials told The Malaysian Insider customers “may abuse” the service, which is why they wanted the cap.

But customers feel they deserve value for money — the price being charged can be considered high for many countries in Asia even without the cap.

The Star newspaper notes:

With the latest announcement by Telekom Malaysia, many people are rejoicing. Among them is communications consultant Justin Then, who said he’s happy to note that Telekom Malaysia listens to consumers.

“Capping our high speed Internet access doesn’t make sense, if the Government wants Malaysians to seek out knowledge and be innovative,” he said.

A Twitter user, who asked to be identified only as Flo, said she’s glad Telekom Malaysia has decided not to employ the cap for now.

“We are paying a premium for technology that offers super high bandwidth, so a daily cap shouldn’t be applied. There’s no value in that; we would be better off with regular broadband,” she said.

One caveat.  As has been the case with a handful of U.S. providers seeking to monetize your broadband usage, rescinding usage caps today doesn’t guarantee they won’t be back tomorrow.  Indeed, TM has yet to remove them from their website, instead inserting in the fine print, “The monthly download volume policy will not be implemented until further notice.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Malaysia Telekom UniFi Promotional Video.flv[/flv]

TM’s slick promotional video unveiling the faster UniFi broadband packages asks y0u to “imagine.”  We did… imagining how in the world we can accomplish all of the things they show in the video with the company’s proposed arbitrary usage limits and speed throttles.  Imagine actually getting the service you paid to receive without a provider imagining how much use = “abuse.”  (6 minutes)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grassroots this isn’t.

Accidental Evidence: The Consequences of An Exposed PowerPoint Presentation

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

Now the truth can be told.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Target Groups

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

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

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

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

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The video ends with a bleeped expletive.  Real professional.

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

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

Let’s Get Real.

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t be Americans for Prosperity’s sucker.