Pot?  Meet Kettle!

In one of the biggest ironies thus far this year, a British broadband provider trying to one-up the competition has started running ads with Dr. Seuss-like characters that represent marketing exaggerations, traps, and bad customer service, all while forgetting to disclose it engages in some tricks of its own.

O2’s Niggles & Narks campaign features animated creatures that represent where broadband has gone all-wrong:

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/O2 Niggles and Narks Ad 5-2010.flv[/flv]

Once upon a time, when broadband was made, we browsed and surfed and chatted — everybody played.

But for some, the magic faded.  Some things started to go wrong.

Without any warning, the niggles and nobs came along.

With the No Support-a-Saurus — spouting twaddle was his game.  His impossible instructions would slowly knot your brain.

The Crafty-Cost Nark took pleasure in his work, delivering line rental bills that drove us all berserk.

And with the Mystery-Speed Mook, you never really know. You thought you’d get mega-fast but got stuck with dead slow.

But this is where we draw the line and try to right what’s wrong.  Wouldn’t broadband be a better place, with narks and niggles gone?

But accusing the others of broadband narks and niggles -you- see, without confessing your own is little more than hypocrisy.

In a land of broadband O2 promises is not a dream, it brings to the table its own Internet Overcharging scheme.

No nobble or niggle could ever believe, selling unlimited broadband -that wasn’t- was something they could achieve.

But O2 managed — somehow, we don’t know, to define “unlimited” as 10GB per month — exceeding it brings woe.

Maybe it's a typo that should have read, "download as much as WE like."

O2 sells its broadband packages across the United Kingdom, either bundled under a BTWholesale-based package or unbundled direct from O2 or BeBroadband.  Only the BTWholesale accounts, common in rural areas where O2 doesn’t have its own equipment installed in the exchange offices, are impacted by the limit on unlimited.  BT apparently charges them some form of consumption billing, and they aren’t willing to eat the costs.

Starting in March, many customers started receiving letters stating they were using the service too much, and if they didn’t back off, they’d be disconnected.  One customer received a disconnect warning after using 40.1GB, primarily from watching BBC’s iPlayer, which delivers on demand television programming.

What represented “too much” for an “unlimited service?”

“Most O2 customers use less than 10GB a month. Aim for that and you’ll be okay,” says one of O2’s support pages on the topic.

Outraged consumers arguing that “unlimited” should mean “unlimited” and didn’t comply were promptly disconnected.

With the introduction of O2’s new high-priced Niggles & Narks advertising campaign, the hilarity ensued as customers began calling out O2’s hypocrisy, leading to clarifications from O2 that were anything but:

As some of you have been discussing, we’ve started to disconnect some of the very highest usage customers whose download patterns have detrimentally affected other customers’ experience, even after we have requested them to reduce their usage and explained the effect it’s having. We will continue this in order to improve the experience for the majority of the customers on the service.

We are also making the service run more efficiently by updating the hardware and software that runs the Access service. This will improve the prioritization of the real-time activity, such as streaming, over less time-sensitive activities such as P2P. — O2 Statement from March 26th 2010

O2's "Unlimited Broadband" Price Chart

Then there is this fine print on the question of “unlimited service” that only a credit card company or bank could love (the underlining is ours):

How much should I cut my broadband use?

Most O2 customers use less than 10GB a month. Aim for that and you’ll be okay.

Your product is unlimited, so why are you telling me to use less?

There aren’t any usage limits on any of our O2 Home Broadband packages. That means you can download and upload as much as you like each month, within reason.

Our network’s been designed to cope with people downloading large files (like music or films) and watching video online. But if you’re using the service excessively – like continually downloading large files at peak times – then we do reserve the right to warn you to lower your usage. In exceptional circumstances, we can even terminate your account.

This is because excessive use by a few people can reduce the speed that other customers in the same area can get. We just want to provide everyone with an excellent level of service.

Then company officials unofficially increased the limit to 40GB per month, as this note on an official company forum disclosed:

We’re contacting less than 10% of our heaviest users at the moment and you fell into this top tier. The majority use less than 10GB and at present if you use less than 40GB, you wouldn’t hear from us.”

This isn’t the first time O2 has confused its customers.  ThinkBroadband reminds us of 2007’s mess over the same issue:

O2 have never been good at defining the term ‘unlimited’ as can be seen in 2007 when they had three different definitions for the word. Back then they did recognize that customers were confused by the term and the marketing director Sally Cowdry was quoted as saying “customer feedback has been that if we say unlimited, it should be unlimited.” We wonder why two and half years on, O2 still have not ‘nobbled this broadband niggle.’

Unfortunately for O2 customers, the company has not righted any broadband wrongs.  They’ve added to them.  O2 has an chronic problem with their own Niggles and Narks.  Perhaps British regulators can do a better job exterminating them.

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.

More evidence arrived this week that Internet Overcharging schemes are becoming a thing of the past for many global broadband users.

Sky has announced it is getting rid of its usage limits and speed throttles for most of its broadband customers.  It’s also giving away a free speed upgrade to up to 20Mbps for its DSL-provisioned broadband service.

“It comes with no usage caps, fair use policies or traffic management, making it ideal for those who want the freedom to download emails, photos, TV programs, movies and games. It’s also ideal for those who want to access live and on-demand TV through Sky Player,” Sky said.

That may be part of the plan.  Sky, a satellite television company serving the United Kingdom, is preparing to launch new video on demand features that will work in conjunction with its broadband service.  Delivering faster access, without limits, could be part of the equation of making their video on demand service a success.

For occasional broadband users who don’t exceed 2 gigabytes of use per month, Sky is giving free usage-limited broadband service to customers who also subscribe to Sky’s telephone service.  For those that don’t, the 2 gigabyte-capped service costs £5 ($7.59US) per month.

For those looking for unlimited service, Sky Unlimited is available for £7.50/$11.38 per month for Sky customers with Sky Talk or £12.50/$18.97 per month for those without.  In the United Kingdom, line charges for the phone line are broken out from broadband pricing and have to be considered towards the total monthly cost for broadband service.  Line rental from BT costs £12.50/$18.97 a month for customers who pay by direct debit and receive paper billing (£11.25/$17.08 with paperless billing).

Sky requires a 12 month service commitment.  These prices and plans take effect June 1st.  New customers can get a promotion offering six months of free broadband service, including line rental, when signing a 12-month service commitment.

New customers can get six months of broadband service for free when signing up

Is there a downside to this offer?  Not as far as usage limits are concerned.  However, the service is dependent on BT-provisioned DSL phone lines, which can create great variability in the maximum actual speeds customers receive.  The further away from a BT exchange office, the slower the maximum speed a customer will achieve.

But for existing Sky satellite customers looking for a discount on bundled service and an end to worries about monthly usage or speed throttles, Sky Broadband is a welcome relief for those tired of Internet Overcharging schemes.

It’s also one fewer example North American providers can point to as an excuse to attempt Internet Overcharging schemes of their own.

Sometimes you have to wonder who telecom front groups hire to push their agenda.  In the Stop the Cap! e-mail box came a news tip last week that a new study proved beyond doubt that passing Net Neutrality would put up to 1.5 million jobs at risk by the year 2020.  Just as bad, the study warns, broadband investment would plummet as a result, causing an investment retreat worth up to $5 billion dollars.  They thought I should know.

All of this ruinous news results from a government that wants to make sure your Internet Service Provider doesn’t block, impede, or censor the traffic of independent websites that don’t  pay a protection fee to keep their content online and accessible.  What’s that I smell?  The easily recognized scent of plastic grass — more astroturfing from a broadband industry intent on keeping broadband regulation as far away from them as possible.

The Employment and Economic Impacts of Network Neutrality Regulation: An Empirical Analysis, by Dr. Coleman Bazelon — working on behalf of something called “The Brattle Group, Inc.,” is a real page-turner.  I tore right through it myself.

Just reading the background of Dr. Bazelon rang all sorts of warning bells:

• Dr. Bazelon consulted and testified on behalf of clients in numerous telecommunications matters;
• Dr. Bazelon frequently advises regulatory and legislative bodies;
• Dr. Bazelon was a vice president with Analysis Group, an economic and strategy consulting firm.

More ordinary folks use a different, less fancy term to cover all this: lobbyist tool.

The key finding for the report:

New network neutrality regulations proposed by the FCC could slow the growth of the broadband sector, potentially affecting as many as 1.5 million jobs, both union and non-union, by the end of the decade.

So how does Bazelon come to this conclusion?

The academic literature on possible effects of network neutrality regulation does not provide a consensus view on whether such regulations should be expected to help or harm the broadband sector, although several economists have concluded that such regulation would be harmful.

I tore right through Bazelon's report.

Many of those economists were paid by the broadband industry to conclude that in their own “reports.”  Many of Bazelon’s footnotes reference himself, telecommunications company executives, or other connected parties who have a financial interest in opposing Net Neutrality or broadband regulations.

At the heart of Bazelon’s theory is that content-related jobs, those involving the development of the websites you like to visit to read, listen, watch, or download from, cost more money to create than broadband “dumb pipe” jobs.  In other words, if you’re developing iTunes content or a network to stream Netflix movies, your job cost more (and probably pays more) than a line splicer at AT&T who is rolling out 3 Mbps DSL service in Rolla, Missouri.

So, if we penalize content developers with Internet Overcharging schemes or speed throttles that discourage your use of iTunes or Netflix, AT&T can use the savings from dramatically lower demand and hire more people to wire up communities for basic DSL service.  That’s okay, because it creates new jobs: “to the extent that the absence of network neutrality regulations leads to a transfer of ‘wealth’ (or sector revenues) from the Internet content sector to the broadband sector, such a transfer would be expected to have a positive impact on employment.”

That’s a great deal for you, right?

Net Neutrality doesn’t impede bigger profits for broadband providers – it just insists that they don’t earn those profits parasitically on the back of someone else’s content.  If your cable or phone company owned Netflix, there wouldn’t be an issue.  They would provide a service and earn from it.  But they don’t, and demand a piece of the pie anyway.

By the way, Bazelon’s myopic report completely misses another fundamental fact.  In today’s non-Net Neutral world, large phone companies like Verizon and AT&T have slashed tens of thousands of jobs just fine without pesky Net Neutrality or other broadband regulations getting in the way.  It’s like telling a New Orleans resident standing in four feet of water during Hurricane Katrina that if we don’t do something about the levees next year, the city could be flooded.

The author also states the obvious:

Broadband open access and net neutrality regulations are both regulatory interventions aimed at restricting a broadband network owner’s ability to exercise market power. The first acts at a structural level to eliminate any potential market power in the provision of the good; the second acts at a behavioral level restricting the broadband provider’s ability to benefit from any such market power.

Sounds like a plan to me and millions of other consumers who see the results of the industry’s market power workout routine… in the form of ever-increasing monthly bills.

Bazelon's vision for the Internet's future

Bazelon is even willing to predict some winners and losers with the FCC’s proposed Net Neutrality regulations:

Under the strict network neutrality regime being considered by the FCC, different Internet content might flourish. In particular, some Internet content is less commercial and generates very little revenue. Content that does not generate much economic value may be advantaged by a network neutrality regime. It is worth noting, however, that such content, by not primarily being engaged in the economy, does not significantly impact employment. Larger commercial sites have the potential of doing better or worse under network neutrality regulations. On the one hand, potentially lower costs of access should benefit them; on the other hand, potentially less developed broadband infrastructure could harm their businesses. With some content winning and some content losing, there is no reason to believe that the total amount of content will be more or less (or more or less valued by Internet users) under one regime or the other. Some business models will do well under one regime, others under the other regime.

In other words, in Bazelon’s world, the formerly level playing field where content is king and website value is decided on its merits is replaced with a corporate-controlled broadband network where only the big, well-financed players will get to play.  If you’re CNN or Amazon.com, you’ll have no problem meeting the protection racket prices providers could demand to guarantee your content isn’t blocked or slowed to a crawl.  But if you’re a poor blogger, a new business start-up, or use the web to argue for and against various causes, get to the back of the line (if you are allowed in the line in the first place.)

The Internet gets reincarnated as Prodigy, for those old enough to remember using that online service.

Ultimately, Bazelon believes only big broadband providers can create economic success stories in our online future.  Making them play by certain rules will kill that success, he argues.

Only one problem – when Bazelon gazes up into the sky, he sees AT&T logos everywhere he looks.  That’s because Mobile Future, the group that paid for the study, is yet another creature of AT&T.  To hide the fact this is yet another AT&T front group, several of AT&T’s usual friends also turn up on the membership roster.  Just a few days after calling out LULAC – the League of United Latin American Citizens for selling out the Latino community to AT&T’s agenda, here they are again — joined at AT&T’s hip as a member of Mobile Future.

A selection of other Mobile Future (brought to you by AT&T) members

Asian Business Association – No national website, which already makes this suspicious, but the San Diego chapter admits AT&T is a corporate sponsor.

Asian Women in Business – AT&T underwrote their website.

Bump.com – The company is self-described on Mobile Future’s website as “the world’s largest purpose-formed safety, communication and marketing network. BUMP uses safe and convenient voice recognition and ALPR (automatic license plate recognition) to provide drivers worldwide with a communication platform that promotes safety on the roads and builds a unique global network.”  They should win an award for puffery.  In fact, this “world’s largest” enterprise doesn’t even have a website.  It claims it was founded in 2009, but its Facebook page just showed up April 15th of this year with a handful of photos showing… license plates.  Why license plates?  Because the group’s real aim is to set up a registry of those willing to receive text messages sent by typing in someone’s license plate and quietly linking it to your cell phone.

The Century Council – Public interest group padding.  Ask yourself what a group fighting underage teen drinking and driving built from and run by distilleries has to do with mobile broadband, Net Neutrality, spectrum demand, and wireless phone taxes — the primary issues Mobile Future seeks to address.

Climate Cartoons – The group’s CEO is a Washington, DC lobbyist specializing in fighting telecommunications issues.  Among Arnold Consulting Group’s “accomplishments:” building a “telecommunications coalition that successfully opposed federal and state ‘Net neutrality’ legislation” and a “cable television coalition that successfully opposed federal, state and local efforts to enact open access broadband regulations.”  Need I say more?

Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership – Another LULAC — follows AT&T policy initiatives around like a friendly puppy.  HTTP was busted by Ars Technica when asked whether AT&T had any hand in helping the group draft its opposition to Net Neutrality.  HTTP’s Sylvia Aguilera insisted she initiated the drive to oppose Net Neutrality, but was silent on whether AT&T helped draft the letter opposing it.

That’s only halfway down their so-called “coalition” list.  You get the point.  The only name that truly matters among all of Mobile Future’s members is AT&T because they are the ones spreading the money around to pay for it.  At the same time, if AT&T is writing contribution checks to your public interest group, or hiring your consulting/lobbying firm to represent your agenda, those are two compelling reasons for both to hurry on over to sign up for the cause in this, and other astroturf front groups.

On behalf of Climate Cartoons, which purports to “lure people into earth friendly behavior,” please be sure to give all due respect to this latest industry-backed study from Dr. Bazelon by tossing it into the nearest recycling bin.