In a welcome turn of events, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), which has routinely turned up as a member of Big Telecom-backed astroturf campaigns and takes money from AT&T, has come together with Latinos for Internet Freedom to issue a joint statement calling on the Federal Communications Commission to adopt equal Net Neutrality policies for wired and wireless broadband services.

“Although we disagree on some of the components of the proposed network neutrality regulations, there is one point on which we are in lock step: the FCC’s network neutrality rules must apply equally to wireline and wireless internet access.  Of course we understand that what is ‘reasonable network management’ may be slightly different over different types of connections.  Cost is the primary barrier to broadband adoption, and Latinos are turning to their mobile phones as their only onramp to the internet.  We are committed to finding ways to lower broadband costs by increasing competition through wireless access and other means.  It is therefore essential that the FCC ensures that users of wireless and wireline services are protected by its openness rules.”

Of course, broadband providers’ demands for deregulation and unified opposition to Net Neutrality have never delivered and will never provide cheaper Internet service to anyone.  In fact, the court ruling that eliminated the FCC’s authority over broadband gave providers nearly a year of a wide open marketplace, yet many providers are now sending out notices they are -increasing- broadband prices for subscribers.  Net Neutrality has never been enforced against wireless networks either, and as a result most either usage cap, throttle, or charge enormous overlimit fees for users deemed to be “using too much.”

Increased competition can bring lower prices, but only if it extends well beyond today’s duopoly.  In areas where one provider is likely to maintain a de facto monopoly, effective oversight is required to ensure consumers receive adequate service at fair prices.

Still, it is a surprising and welcome change to see LULAC recognizing the true nature of broadband access for many economically-challenged Americans, especially in minority communities where unemployment continues to be catastrophic.  Some consumers are finding prepaid wireless broadband service to be one way onto the Internet, yet Big Telecom has sought to keep those networks exempt from any Net Neutrality consumer protections.  That cannot be allowed to happen.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon vs. Latinos for Internet Freedom.flv[/flv]

Watch these two competing spots from Verizon and the Latinos for Internet Freedom.  One is self-serving and a tad condescending, the other calls for a free and open Internet where individuals get a level playing field to tell their own stories and live their own lives without fear or special favor.  (2 minutes)

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.

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.

Reach Out and Touch Someone... With Cash

Stop the Cap! readers Terry and Scott write to let us know it was an Astroturf weekend in the pages of the New York Times‘ ‘Letters to the Editor’ section as two traditional allies in big telecom’s fight against Net Neutrality and broadband regulation blasted the newspaper’s recent pro-FCC regulatory authority editorial.

Mike Wendy, vice president of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a disingenuously-named telephone and cable-backed front group, was first up, proclaiming the bipartisanship of the glorious Telecommunications Act of 1996 which made unregulated broadband’s growth possible:

Over the last five years alone, American companies — incentivized by the absence of Internet regulation — have invested more than half a trillion dollars to build broadband infrastructure. Consequently, this has exploded broadband choice and access, boosting jobs, productivity and commerce, as well as other important societal-civic benefits, for more than 90 percent of America. This growth will continue, fostered by vibrant competition among cable, wireless, wire line and other evolving means.

It is understandable that you ignore the second fact: it reveals an inconvenient truth. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which put Internet services outside of 75-year-old telephone regulations, was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Democratic president, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan manner. The Bush-era regulatory changes, which ensure that Internet services get treated in accord with the law, only followed through on the pro-deregulatory, pro-marketplace intent of the law.

Speaking of inconvenient truths, it took the newspaper’s editors to fully disclose that “the writer is vice president of […] a think tank that takes support from the information technology, telecom, wireless, media, cable and content industries.”  Kudos to the Times for disclosing that — too often such hackery goes unchallenged, without informing readers who is paying for it.

In the case of P&F, it’s all our favorites:

Translation: We don't represent consumers

• AT&T
• Comcast Corporation
• Cox Enterprises
• National Cable & Telecommunications Association
• Time Warner Cable
• T-Mobile
• USTelecom – The Broadband Association
• Verizon Communications

Of course, those big dollar amounts representing industry investments ignores the even bigger profits reaped from those investments, particularly in barely-competitive broadband.  Nobody in the broadband industry is lining up for a bailout, that’s for certain.

As to the group’s assertion that bipartisan bliss made telecom deregulation all worthwhile, the only thing they managed to prove is that both political parties are ready and willing to be suckered into believing the broken promises of lower pricing and better service for their constituents (helped along with a generous campaign contribution to ease any disappointment later on.)

President Clinton, who signed the Act, considers it one of his mistakes after he saw the results.

Just days after the governor of Arizona signed a highly controversial border enforcement measure into law, LULAC labels Net Neutrality opposition its "top news story." Is this a group that represents the real interests of America's Latino community, or that of its backers AT&T and Verizon?

Next up is a letter from Brent A. Wilkes, Executive Director, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).  He doesn’t like Net Neutrality either, and regurgitates familiar industry talking points our readers can recite in their sleep:

We’ve seen more than $200 billion invested in broadband networks — more private investment than anywhere in the world — and the Internet in the United States has been an unquestioned success.

Second, network neutrality regulations are largely a solution in search of a problem. The F.C.C. adopted “Open Internet” principles in 2005. Since then, there have been only a few alleged breaches that were quickly resolved under this framework.

On the other hand, net neutrality regulations could shield the companies that make billions in profits from the Internet — search engines and other providers — from contributing toward the $350 billion in investment broadband upgrades needed to handle bandwidth demands, which double every two years. That would shift these bandwidth costs exclusively — 100 percent — onto consumers and could thereby deter broadband adoption in Latino and other communities.

Net neutrality could also bar broadband providers from managing, in a nondiscriminatory manner, the few bandwidth-hogging applications and services that can consume nearly all of a neighborhood’s bandwidth. If and when critics identify a real problem, Congress should quickly grant the F.C.C. the express authority to fix it.

Now why would a Latino interest group be so ready and willing to carry the industry’s water in the pages of the New York Times?  Whenever AT&T and Verizon have a public policy concern, LULAC is sure to follow.  For years, this group has been a part of more than a few industry-backed astroturf campaigns designed to trick consumers into buying their corporate agenda.  For disadvantaged Latino communities already hard hit with an ever-expanding price tag for telecommunications services, it’s shameful to see a group openly advocating an agenda that extracts more money from consumers’ wallets.

LULAC has received millions in support from General Motors, AT&T and Verizon

LULAC was there as a card-carrying member of both TV4Us and Consumers for Cable Choice, front groups promising consumers in states served by AT&T that statewide video franchises would lower their cable bills.  LULAC was front and center in the cheerleading section.  Only Latino Wisconsins, along with everyone else, got rate increases instead.  Thanks, LULAC!

Telecom analyst Bruce Kushnick tears the lid off:

This “deception … is about playing on America’s caring about the public interest and about minorities getting a fair shake,” Kushnick says . Worse, “these organizations have very deep-pocketed funders with lobbying groups, PR firms and others to get them the loudest ‘volume’ in the media or access to regulators and legislators. They often overwhelm the message of independent consumer groups.”

LULAC was there in states like New Jersey when Verizon was looking for its own statewide franchises.  To not offer them, LULAC suggested, would harm Latino communities across the region.  Actually, for many of them, the fact their cable and phone bills continue to march relentlessly higher actually hurts more.

The group is an equal opportunity sellout.  During discussions about XM Radio and Sirius merging, LULAC was ready with a letter of support for the merger.  Because when you think about pressing concerns for today’s Latino community, dwelling on the merger of two satellite radio services is a real front burner issue.

When Verizon wanted to acquire Alltel, guess what group was there to cheer the deal on:

LULAC supports this merger because the networks of the two companies are largely complementary. That means that when the merger is complete, even more consumers will enjoy the innovations Verizon Wireless plans to bring to market in years to come.

It’s getting hard to find a cause célèbre for AT&T or Verizon where LULAC doesn’t have their back.

But why?

Money, of course.

AT&T and Verizon have both donated millions of dollars over the years to LULAC.  General Motors, which had a direct interest in the outcome of the XM/Sirius merger is a donor as well.

Don’t fall for hackery.  Net Neutrality protects consumer interests and guarantees online freedom, something especially important as the forthcoming immigration reform debate begins anew.  That’s an issue Latinos are concerned with.  Too bad those issues don’t generate multi-million dollar contributions, which might get groups like LULAC to stop advocating against the interests of their own members.