With continued inaction at the Federal Communications Commission, some stakeholders in the Net Neutrality debate continue to file comments with the Commission trying to find a “third way” to bring about guarantees for online free speech and access while softening opposition to “network management” technology that allows providers to manipulate broadband traffic.

Among such filers is the Communications Workers of America, which seeks a “middle-ground approach” to protecting a free and open Internet.

The CWA has always maintained its feet in two camps — with consumers looking for improved broadband and with the communications companies that employee large numbers of the union’s members, who will build out those networks and provide service.

The union shares our annoyance with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski for his complete inaction on broadband policy thus far.  In short, the Commission keeps stalling from taking direct action to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, restoring its ability to oversee broadband policy lost in a federal appeals court decision earlier this year.

The CWA used a piece by David Honig from the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC) to echo its own position:

MMTC isn’t alone in being frustrated with the FCC’s disappointing attitude toward real action this past year. In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski expressed impatience with the glacial pace of policymaking at his Commission. Although he mentioned that the FCC, under his direction, has implemented some notable reforms, he conceded that “there is still a lot to do.”

Unfortunately, regardless of how earnest the Chairman is in his desire to move forward with the business of policymaking, his actions speak much louder than his words. Indeed, his yearlong pursuit of network neutrality rules — first via a traditional rulemaking proceeding and, most recently, via an effort to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service — has cast a long and almost suffocating pall over many of the items that the Chairman wishes to act upon. His inaction on civil rights issues — especially EEO enforcement — is just one example of how paralyzed the agency has become.

Recent news that Congress will not move forward to address the regulatory questions that currently vex the Commission (e.g., whether the FCC has authority to regulate broadband service providers) could embolden the Chairman to adopt the sweeping regulatory changes for broadband that he proposed earlier this year. Doing so in the absence of Congressional action would only invite immediate legal challenges that would mire the FCC in litigation, appeals, and remands for years to come.

To put it plainly, the FCC is stuck. Although it recently adopted some promising orders related to broadband (e.g., new rules for accessing new portions of wireless spectrum called “white spaces” and for enhancing access in schools and libraries), the Commission has failed to move forward with implementing core provisions of its monumental National Broadband Plan.

The union last week also submitted its latest round of comments requested by the Commission, this time to broaden its position on a proposed compromise.  We’ve delineated which of the proposals we believe are primarily pro-consumer (in green), pro-provider (red), and which fall straight down the middle (blue):

• First, wireline broadband Internet access providers (“broadband providers”) should not block lawful content, applications, or services, or prohibit the use of non-harmful devices on the Internet.
• Second, wireline and wireless broadband providers should be transparent regarding price, performance (including reporting actual speed) and network management practices.
• Third wireline broadband providers should not engage in unjust or unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful traffic.
• Fourth, broadband providers must be able to reasonably manage their networks through appropriate and tailored mechanisms, recognizing the technical and operational characteristics of the broadband Internet access platform.
• Fifth, the Commission should take a case-by-case adjudication approach to protect an open Internet rather than promulgating detailed, prescriptive rules.

The first and third principles are strongly pro-consumer, although as we’ve seen, providers have a tendency to want to define for themselves what is “harmful,” “unjust,” or “unreasonable” and impose it on their customers.  We’ve seen provider-backed front groups argue that the concept of Net Neutrality itself is all three of these things.  Any rules must be clearly defined by the Commission, not left to open interpretation by providers.

The second principle cuts right down the middle.  Consumers deserve an honest representation of broadband speeds marketed by providers (not the usual over-optimistic speeds promised in marketing materials), and transparency in price — especially with gotchas like term contracts, early cancellation penalties, overlimit fees, etc.  But providers can also go to town with abusive network management they’ll market as advantageous and fair, even when it is neither.  Just ask customers of Clear who recently found their “unlimited” wireless broadband service, marketed as having no speed throttles, reduced in speed to barely above dial-up when they used the service “too much.”  Clear says the speed throttles are good news and represent fairness.  Customers think otherwise, and disclosure has been lacking.

The fourth and fifth principles benefit providers enormously.  Network management itself is neither benevolent or malicious.  The people who set the parameters for that management are a different story.  A traffic-agnostic engineer might use such technology to improve the quality of services like streamed video and Voice Over IP by helping to keep the packets carrying such traffic running smoothly, without noticeably reducing speeds and quality of service for other users on that network.  There is nothing wrong with these kinds of practices. There is also nothing wrong with providing on-demand speed boosts on a pay-per-use basis, so long as the network is not oversubscribed.

But since providers are spending less to upgrade their networks, providers may seek to exploit these technologies in a more malicious way — too stall needed upgrades and save money by delivering a throttled broadband experience for some or all of their customers.  If customers can be effectively punished for using high bandwidth applications, they’ll reduce their usage of them as well.  That’s good for providers but not for customers who are paying increasing broadband bills for a declining level of service.

Some examples:

• Customers using high bandwidth peer-to-peer applications can have their speeds throttled, sometimes dramatically, when using those applications;
• Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, overlimit fees, and “fair access” policies can discourage consumers from using services like online video, file transfer services, and new multimedia-rich online gaming platforms like OnLive, which can consume considerable bandwidth;
• Preferred content can be “network managed” to arrive at the fastest possible speeds, at the cost of other traffic which consequently must be reduced in speed, meaning your non-preferred traffic travels on the slow lane;
• Providers can redefine levels of broadband service based on intended use, relegating existing packages to “web browsing and e-mail” while marketing new, extra-cost add-ons for services that take the speed controls off services like file transfer and online video, or changes usage limits.

The CWA runs the Speed Matters website, promoting broadband improvements.

It is remarkable the CWA seeks to allow today’s indecisive Commission to individually adjudicate specific disputes, instead of simply laying down some clear principles that would not leave a host of loopholes open for providers to exploit.

Big players like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon have plenty of money at their disposal to attract and influence friends in high places.  If the Commission thought Big Telecom’s friends in Congress were breathing down its neck about telecom policy now, imagine the load it will be forced to carry when these companies seek to test the Commission’s resolve.

Opponents of Net Neutrality claim broadband reclassification will leave providers saddled with Ma Bell-era regulation.  But in truth, the FCC can make their rules plain and simple.  Here are a few of our own proposals:

1. Network management must be content-agnostic.  “Preferred partner” content must travel with the same priority as “non-preferred content;”
2. Providers can use network management to ensure best possible results for customers, but not at the expense of other users with speed throttles and other overcharging schemes;
3. Providers can market and develop new products that deliver enhanced speed services on-demand, but not if those products require a reduction in the level of service provided to other customers;
4. Customers should have the right to opt out of network management or at least participate in deciding what traffic they choose to prioritize;
5. Providers may not block or impede legal content of any kind;

In short, nobody objects to providers developing innovative new applications and services, but they must be willing to commit to necessary upgrades to broaden the pipeline on which they wish to deliver these services.  Otherwise, providers will simply make room for these enhanced revenue services at your expense, by forcing a reduction in your usage or reducing the speed and quality of service to make room for their premium offerings.

The industry itself illustrates this can be done using today’s technology.

The cable industry managed to accomplish benevolent network management with products like “Speed Boost” which delivers enhanced, short bursts of speed to broadband customers based on the current demand on the network.  Those speed enhancements depend entirely on network capacity and do not harm other users’ speeds.

Groups like the CWA need to remember that compromise only works if the terms and conditions are laid out as specifically as possible.  Otherwise, the player with the deepest pockets and closest relationships in Washington will be able to define the terms of the compromise as they see fit.

And that’s no compromise at all.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Larry Cohen on the Open Internet Jobs and the Digital Divide 9-14-10.flv[/flv]

Communications Workers of America president Larry Cohen outlined the union’s position on Net Neutrality before the Congressional Black Caucus Institute on Sept. 14, 2010.  (2 minutes)

Another fight over retransmission consent leaves New York-area Cablevision subscribers in the middle of a dispute they will ultimately pay for.

At 12:01am Saturday, an unintended economic stimulus package kicked in for New York area sports bars as News Corporation yanked Fox network affiliates in New York and Philadelphia from Cablevision subscribers in a dispute over programming fees.

WNYW-TV (Fox), WTXF-TV (Fox), WWOR-TV (MyNetwork TV), Nat Geo WILD, Fox Business Channel, and Fox Deportes were all replaced with a looped message from Cablevision attacking Fox for negotiating in bad faith and greedily demanding more money than the cable company pays for every other New York area broadcaster, combined.

The dispute sent sports fans scurrying for access to weekend sporting events blacked out on the cable system serving Brooklyn, Long Island, and parts of Connecticut and New Jersey.  Cablevision customers were denied yesterday’s New York Giants-Detroit Lions football game and Philadelphia Phillies-San Francisco Giants baseball playoff game.  For a brief period, Fox raised the ante by also blocking Cablevision broadband subscribers from accessing Fox programming on Hulu, until political pressure and complaints from consumer groups forced Fox to retreat.

At issue, as always, is money.  Broadcasters are increasingly insistent on being paid for the right to retransmit their programming over cable systems.  Without agreements, a broadcaster can insist that a cable system drop their station(s) from the lineup until a retransmission consent agreement can be reached.

For years, many smaller independent stations fought to get on cable systems — for free — especially in areas where poor reception made it difficult to watch.  Broadcasters increased local advertising rates thanks to the extended viewing area many cable systems provide.

But now that local ad revenue is not what it used to be, and with viewers going online for access to their favorite shows, agreements increasingly require cash payments for permission to carry stations.

For the nation’s largest television market — New York City, the amounts exchanged can be staggering — well over $100 million dollars each year.  With that kind of money at stake, disputes have become almost routine, and area viewers are sick of it.

“It’s all about the money,” complained resident Joe Figueroa. “They’re always greedy.”

Figeroa and fellow Bronx resident Shinequa Gaillard told WNBC-TV these disputes always leave customers in the middle.

Fox briefly yanked its shows on Hulu Sunday for Cablevision customers attempting to bypass the dispute

“I think neither one of the two are thinking about the customers and the viewers — neither one of them,” Gaillard said. “As consumers, what can we do? Nothing.”

Briefly over the weekend, viewers hoping to bypass the dispute by watching Fox programming on Hulu learned the network had decided to involve Cablevision’s broadband subscribers in the fight as well — blocking access to Fox-owned content.  Some of our readers, include PreventCAPS, noticed.

Stop the Cap! reader and Cablevision subscriber Jim in Garden City, N.Y., discovered the programming blockade when he tried to watch an episode of COPS on Hulu.

“Fox has gone hardball on us by blocking Hulu for anyone with a Cablevision IP address,” Jim writes. “This is how these bastards operate, cutting off programming even for those like me who don’t even have cable TV and should not be involved in this debate at all.”

Jim uses a rooftop antenna to access local stations, and does not subscribe to a Cablevision video package.  He’s convinced this is exactly why we need Net Neutrality enforced by law in the United States.

“Imagine if this was Comcast-NBC vs. Fox,” he warns. “Do you think Comcast wouldn’t think twice of pulling the plug on Fox’s website and video content if the two hated one-another?  They’d flip that switch off in a second.”

The implications did not go unnoticed by Free Press and other consumer groups.

“Consumers should have the right to watch online content, and this access should not be tied to a dispute over cable television carriage arrangements,” said S. Derek Turner, research director for Free Press. “This move is also an example of a major user of public spectrum abusing the public interest.”

The matter quickly also went political, triggering an angry response from Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) urging the Federal Communications Commission to step in and “actively defend Internet freedom and consumer rights.”

A few hours after statements like that, Fox pulled back and restored access, but the point was made for those who recognize media companies have major involvement in online and over-the-air programming.

Israel

Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), whose district includes shut-out Cablevision subscribers, thinks these disputes have become way too common.

Cablevision subscribers have endured short-term lockouts from Food Network and HGTV, networks owned by ABC-Disney, and now this latest dispute with Fox.  Israel wants binding arbitration for these types of disputes, if only to shield customers from one side or the other yanking access:

“I spoke to officials today at the FCC and they confirmed they have offered to mediate arbitration and pledged to keep the heat on both parties to come to the table without disrupting service.  Haven questioned Chairman Genachowski about this issue in March, I know that he shares my concerns about the continued brinkmanship of these negations that threaten to leave customers in the dark.  I’m disappointed that both parties haven’t agreed to hold Giants fans harmless while negotiations continue.”

While Cablevision announced it was willing to enter arbitration to resolve the dispute, Fox officials refused, claiming it would reward bad behavior by the cable company.

Both players have their own websites defending their respective positions and trying to sign up viewers to help fight the battle.

News Corporation, which owns Fox, runs KeepFoxOn and is encouraging Cablevision subscribers to cancel subscriptions and switch to Verizon FiOS or satellite television.  It also accuses Cablevision of hypocrisy over their resistance to paying “fair fees” for Fox-owned programming.

Lew Leone, vice president and general manager of News Corporation’s WNYW and WWOR-TV says Cablevision wants special treatment:

Instead of negotiating like a responsible business, Cablevision decided to make this your problem in the hope that if they caused you, the viewer, enough inconvenience, then politicians would intervene.

That is what Cablevision’s call for “arbitration” is all about.   But ask yourself – do you think Cablevision would be ok with someone else stepping in to decide the price you pay them for cable and broadband service?

And the Cablevision family certainly doesn’t allow arbitrators to set the rates for their cable channels like MSG and AMC.  In fact, just a few weeks ago, MSG and MSG Plus went off the dial for millions of DISH Network subscribers – and MSG did not ask for arbitration.

Cablevision has called us greedy. It’s an interesting charge, given the fact that the price we’ve offered Cablevision for FOX5 and My9 is more than 70% lower than what the Cablevision family charges other cable operators for MSG and MSG Plus.

Frankly, it is hard to believe a company like Cablevision is accusing anyone else of greed.  Cablevision customers pay an average of $149 per month including up to $18 for broadcast stations – and that earned them an average profit of over $795 per subscriber last year.  Yet, they have only offered to pay less than a penny a day for FOX5 and My9.

Cablevision has stated that they intend to provide you with a rebate.  But if the rebate is equal to what they offered Fox for our stations, you can look forward to a credit of less than 30 cents on your next bill.

Cablevision officials fire back that they won’t be bullied.  The Cablevision website, along with a video airing on blacked out channels, accuses Fox of greedily demanding $150 million for stations, many of which customers can watch for free over-the-air:

• Cablevision currently pays 70 million dollars per year for News Corp’s programming (which includes channels such as FOX 5, My9, FOX Business Network, National Geographic Wild, and FOX Deportes), and now they are asking for more than 150 million dollars for the exact same programming – no new programming, just another 80 million dollars per year for News Corp.
• Cablevision has reached agreement with every other major broadcast station, including CBS, NBC, ABC and Univision. But News Corp is demanding more in fees for FOX 5 and My9 than Cablevision and our customers pay for all of the other broadcast stations combined!
• We think in these economic times that this is outrageous, especially since FOX 5 and My9 are available for free over the air, and they make many of their most popular shows available for free on the Internet.
• News Corp has pulled the plug on their most popular programming, holding viewers hostage until their unreasonable demands are met. NFL Football, the MLB playoffs and World Series, House and Glee are just a few of the programs that News Corp is depriving their viewers of in an attempt to bully us into accepting their unfair demands.
• Cablevision is willing to accept binding arbitration from an independent 3rd party to settle this dispute. We call on News Corp to accept binding arbitration, and to put FOX 5 and My9 back on the air for our customers until we can come to a fair agreement.

Both sides have publicized their views in the local media, including full page ads in New York tabloids.  One from Fox targeted Cablevision’s owners personally, accusing the Dolan family of getting top dollar for lesser-watched sports networks under the MSG umbrella while playing hardball over program fees for channels 5 and 9, heavily viewed in the New York area.

Right now, Cablevision pays about 25 cents per month for both broadcasters.  News Corporation reportedly wants a dollar per month.

Forbes entertainment columnist Lacey Rose warns these repeated battles may bring unintended consequences from viewers, especially for Fox:

The networks’ current strategy –block programming while trading barbs with the cable operator in question—may do more harm than good, however, as consumers are (further) incentivized to find new ways to occupy their time. (Much as they did during the 100-day writers’ strike, when new scripted programming was shelved for months.) Still more worrisome, the resulting fees that will be passed down to already cash-strapped subscribers in the form of higher cable bills could end up pushing them away forever.

In an era of 1,000-plus channels and infinite entertainment on the Internet, the broadcast networks are already in a precarious position with younger viewers, which advertisers pay a premium to reach. Blackouts or not, nearly 70% of cord cutters are under the age of 34, according to a BTIG study released last month — and that doesn’t include a growing subset of these younger, tech-savvy viewers who never even bother with a cable subscription, preferring entertainment outlets like Hulu and Netflix for their content.  Though the networks are loathe to admit it, viewership continues to decline as the median age of the audience at the big four rises. In fact, thus far this season the median age of a prime-time viewer is 50 years old, according to The Nielsen Company.

But at least for now, as negotiations continue in the third day of the programming blackout, there appears to be no end in sight.  Cablevision has even engaged in some programming blackouts of its own, denying access to today’s New York gubernatorial debate to Verizon FiOS, which prompted an angry response from the phone company.

“Verizon FiOS TV customers and millions of other viewers served by other providers across the state have essentially been blacked out of the debate, denying them their rights as citizens and voters, since Cablevision is the sole broadcaster of the event,” said Michelle Webb, general manager and chief programming officer of FiOS1, Verizon’s news channel for Long Island and northern New Jersey. “And while the broadcast will be available on certain websites and some radio, those may not be practical solutions for many people.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fox Cablevision Dispute 10-18-10.flv[/flv]

Stop the Cap! brings you a comprehensive roundup of coverage from the New York area regarding the Cablevision-Fox dispute, with coverage from WNYW, WABC, and NY 1 television, Cablevision and Fox themselves, and WINS and WCBS Radio.  (14 minutes)

Big Telecom Cash works its magic

As the fall elections near, the rhetoric and sheer nonsense from those opposed to important consumer broadband reforms has reached a fever pitch.  And as our reader Karen writes, too many Americans and the candidates they support just don’t get it.

Here in Delaware, Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell exemplifies what Net Neutrality supporters are up against — complete ignorance and big cash contributions.  Before she went into hiding, I attended one of Christine’s rare public events and asked her about where she stood on Net Neutrality and her response was she believed “all sides should be represented on the Internet.”  So she thinks Net Neutrality is about views expressed online, not stopping the telecom industry from slowing or blocking access to websites.

At least 35 of the Tea Party groups are opposed to Net Neutrality, mostly because their financial backers (big corporations and billionaire-funded front groups) have convinced members they should be.  Many others are stupid enough to believe Glenn Beck and his pal Phil Kerpen at Americans for Prosperity who say Net Neutrality will “censor” the Internet or turn control of it over to Barack Obama.

Conservative groups heavily funded by corporate interests they refuse to identify are backing various chapters of so-called “Tea Party” groups and feeding them talking points generated by companies like AT&T and Verizon in opposition to Net Neutrality.  The Center for Individual Freedom runs a website StopNetRegulation, edited by conservative activist Seton Motley, dedicated to derailing broadband reforms.  Motley was also quoted in The Hill in late September warning Republicans about antagonizing Tea Party types with their support for Net Neutrality in Congress.  Only then his comments came as leader of the group “Less Government.”  Judging from the organization’s website, Motley is also in favor of reduced size websites because his amounts to a single sentence.

Seton is convinced the end of the net world, as we know it, comes November 30th when the government could “seize control of the Internet.” That’s the date of the FCC’s November meeting, at which Seton suspects Julius Genachowski will finally move to reclassify broadband as a telecommunication service. 

Seton completely misrepresents reclassification as saddling the Internet with “the same rules as landline telephones.”  I read that claim somewhere before… oh yes, straight from AT&T and Verizon lobbyist talking points.

It doesn’t matter to Seton and other conservatives that Genachowski went out of his way to say he would not be applying any onerous telephone-era regulations on today’s broadband providers.  In fact, Genachowski’s actions to date have moved at such a glacial pace, friends have to occasionally check his pulse to make sure he’s still with us.

So what is so big, bad, and scary about Net Neutrality?  It simply guarantees your Internet Service Provider doesn’t start throttling your speeds when accessing websites and Internet applications they dislike, cannot block access to websites critical of their agenda, and are not allowed to extort payments from content providers just to allow traffic onto “their” networks.

While that may pose a Halloween freak-out for the profit-obsessed phone and cable companies, it’s hard to find actual consumers (not paid by said providers) who want their Internet service blocked or slowed down.

Seton goes way over the top turning this into a First Amendment free speech issue.  That argument only works for the likes of AT&T and Verizon who find their corporate right to overcharge people for broadband being infringed.

Seton then argues his view must be right because even minority groups support his position.  As readers here already know, most of the groups he names to bolster his argument are “dollar-a-holler” organizations willing to peddle the phone and cable company agenda on their letterhead in return for donation checks.

So have many additional normally Democrat paragons, including several large unions: AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of America (CWA), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); several racial grievance groups: League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Minority Media and Telecom Council (MMTC), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Urban League; and an anti-free market environmentalist group: the Sierra Club.

If you ever wondered why AT&T and Verizon spend so much on contributions to these interest groups, Seton Motley just handed you the answer — so he and the companies he supports could name drop them in arguments against pro-consumer broadband reform.  And considering the CWA and IBEW represent phone company workers, it’s not a surprise to see them on their side of this issue either.  Wherever you look amongst those in opposition to Net Neutrality, a check from AT&T and/or Verizon is almost always waiting to be deposited.

The Obama-Has-Concentration-Camps-crowd parked on Andrew Breitbart’s website ate it up and wrote comments like this:

The communist can’t control the people with a internet that is out of control, all dictatorships have the power over what the people can read, free thinkers in this day and age are considered terrorist, Republicans, conservatives, anti abortionist, Oath Keepers, Christians, ex military, people who think the Constitution is still the law of the land, my lord, the communist can’t have these sorts communicating with each other over the internet, why, they may all come together one day and put a stop to the one world government goal, you know, the goal of making the world one big slave camp.

This kind of wild opposition has even corporate Republicans on edge, according to The Hill.  A major talking point of Net Neutrality opposition is that such “sweeping changes” should not be enforced by the FCC, but from legislation enacted in Congress.  But because Tea Party elements are opposed to the concept altogether, and Republicans are loathe to hand Democrats their votes on much of anything, even a corporate-friendly Net Neutrality bill introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) went up in flames.  Waxman’s bill would have enacted some protections, but only until 2012, at which point it was open season on broadband consumers.

The Hill piece delivered a disappointing fact of life for much of today’s Congress, beholden first to corporate interests (underlining ours):

In a striking sign that people who normally align themselves with telecommunications companies may line up behind the bill if it is industry-backed, ardent net-neutrality critic Brett Glass, founder of a wireless company, is open to it. He tweeted on Monday, in a note to Americans for Prosperity executive Phil Kerpen, that the Waxman legislation seems “more reasonable than I expected.”

In a note earlier this month, analysts at Stifel Nicolaus wrote that although Republican House members “may not have incentive to solve a political problem for Democrats,” some may support the bill “if there’s a push by” phone and cable companies and at least some Internet companies.

But the shilling for Big Telecom has never been a one-party-problem.  While Republicans appear to be moving in lock step against Net Neutrality, a number of groups and politicians on the Democratic left have also been only too willing to take AT&T money and run to a microphone to oppose a free and open Internet.

The Los Angeles Times gave plenty of space on an issue we’ve written repeatedly about on Stop the Cap!:

Key minority groups are backing the carriers’ efforts to thwart the net neutrality proposals, which would, for instance, prohibit carriers from charging more to give some residential and corporate customers priority in delivering online content.

“When you give national civil rights groups millions of private dollars, there’s no firewall strong enough to keep that money out of their policy,” said Malkia Cyril, executive director of the Center for Media Justice.

Cyril and other consumer and public advocates have been buoyed by comments from Federal Communications Commission member Mignon L. Clyburn, a prominent African American and daughter of Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.).

She said in a speech in January that she was surprised that most statements and filings by “some of the leading groups representing people of color have been silent on this make-or-break issue” of net neutrality.

“There has been almost no discussion of how important — how essential — it is for traditionally underrepresented groups to maintain the low barriers to entry that our current open Internet provides,” Clyburn said.

AT&T's cash machine benefits groups like LULAC

At issue are the enormous contributions from big phone and cable companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon that routinely translate into what we’ve called “dollar-a-holler” advocacy.  After the checks get deposited, many of these groups generate innocent sounding letters of support for the latest merger, deregulation, or policy debate — always in favor of Big Telecom and too often directly against the interests of the people they claim to represent.

No group better exemplifies this than the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), a particularly eager player in the cash for advocacy game.  And the group doesn’t care whether the money comes from Verizon or AT&T.  They’re on board with both.

Brent A. Wilkes, executive director, penned this guest editorial for the Houston Chronicle, for which he was called an “idiot” by at least one of the newspaper’s readers:

Net-neutrality rules should prevent broadband providers from engaging in anti-competitive behavior, but they should not be commandeered to insulate wealthy Internet applications companies from paying their fair share of the broadband bill. Any new rules must protect consumers both by ensuring their unfettered access and by shielding them from having to shoulder all the costs for faster broadband networks that our nation so badly needs. Such an approach will not please the special interests, but it will be a double win for consumers.

From AT&T’s talking points to Wilkes editorial.  “Wealthy Internet applications companies” already pay for their own bandwidth and for the Internet’s expansion.  Search engine companies like Google and Yahoo! construct data centers with their own money just to maintain their services to consumers, generating jobs and helping local economies.  Wilkes ignores the fact broadband providers already earn plenty from their subscribers — consumers and businesses who pay a monthly fee so they can access those “wealthy Internet applications companies.”

But that is not enough.  Now broadband providers want to be paid twice.  To facilitate their argument, they’ve invested more than a million dollars in LULAC alone to defend their position, which ultimately brings Latinos (and everyone else) the high broadband bills today that Wiles scaremongers will be forthcoming tomorrow.

Wilkes was shocked, shocked by the implication that phone company money would have anything to do with LULAC going out of its way to comment on arcane telecommunications policy issues, always in favor of its benefactors.

“It’s kind of like saying the minority organizations can’t think for themselves,” Wilkes said, adding that any suggestion that minority groups were mouthpieces for the industry was “offensive.”

Verizon played along:

“I can tell you we do not, and have not ever, given money to minority organizations so that they will support our positions on any topic,” said Peter Thonis, a spokesman for Verizon Communications Inc. “We talk to many groups about our positions, and some agree with us and some do not.”

So if Verizon talked to Stop the Cap! about their positions, do you think we’d receive a handsome check from the phone company?

Britt cut out all of the middlemen and picked up the phone to personally lobby FCC Chairman Genachowski about broadband reform.

The Times documented numerous other examples:

For instance, David Cohen, Comcast’s executive vice president, joined the board of the National Urban League three years ago as part of a three-year partnership to promote the league’s various educational programs. Comcast, now seeking FCC approval to buy a controlling interest in NBC Universal, was recognized that year for being one of several sponsors to donate $5 million or more to the organization.

On the local level, the Greater Sacramento Urban League has Barbara Winn, a Sacramento-area director of external affairs for AT&T, as its chairwoman and Linda Crayton, Comcast’s senior director for government affairs in California, as vice chairwoman.

That affiliate’s president, David B. DeLuz, wrote to the FCC in January that net neutrality rules “will strongly reduce broadband network investments and ultimately raise prices.” DeLuz said in an interview that the two telecom executives on the chapter’s board have not influenced its net neutrality stance.

“The Urban League does not engage in pay to play,” he said. “Just because [telecoms] write a check to us doesn’t mean they write the only check to us.”

The most remarkable part about the Urban League’s argument is that in a sea of corporate cash, competing checks can cancel each other out.

While the blizzard of bucks continues to descend on Washington, Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt decided his cable company could cut out the middlemen and go right to the man with the plan to reclassify broadband.  Unlike ordinary consumers, Britt had no trouble getting FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to take his call, allowing him to personally lobby against Net Neutrality and those nasty broadcasters trying to overcharge him for permission to carry local broadcast stations on the Time Warner Cable dial.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Net Neutrality There’s a problem.mp4[/flv]

It seems like only yesterday AT&T’s Ed “Our Pipes” Whitacre was clamoring for the right to deliver the Internet to consumers his way, complete with pay walls and speed throttles.  Very little has changed since Big Ed left for Government Motors with his $158 million AT&T golden parachute.  The name at the top has changed, but AT&T still recognizes money buys friends and influence.  (2 minutes)

Back in the 1980s, a group of ragtag rural home satellite dishowners with 10 foot dishes took on the cable television industry for forcing viewers to purchase a set top decoder unit ($395) and paying programming prices higher than what cable viewers paid.  It was all part of an effort by the cable industry, which had an ownership interest in most cable networks back then, to discourage consumers from purchasing satellite dishes to escape ever-increasing cable rates.

Back then, these consumers ran into the same kind of Congress we endure today — quick to listen to industry representatives bearing campaign contributions and slow to respond to the needs and interests of their constituents who elected them.  Indeed, in one infamous example, a call placed to then-New York Senator Al D’Amato resulted in a staff member asking “what company are you with?”

Despite the power and influence of corporate interests protecting their turf, earning enormous profits along the way, many satellite dishowners stayed in the fight, and as cable rate increases continued, major reforms were finally enacted in the 1992 Cable Act which made small satellite dish services like DISH and DirecTV possible.

The struggle for Net Neutrality reminds me of that fight, and the fact it would take time to overcome the special interests and obtain important reforms.  Here at Stop the Cap!, we’ve won more battles than we’ve lost thanks to a small army of consumers who despise Internet Overcharging schemes and are tired of paying outrageous high prices for broadband and other telecommunications services.  Giving up the fight is not an option.

As the 111th Congress draws to a close, efforts to enact Net Neutrality through legislation this year have come to naught.

We were also disappointed by Julius Genachowski, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.  Despite his promising start at the agency, after more than a year watching his performance he has proven to be far better at making speeches than actually implementing policy.  His indecision and dawdling has resulted in a failure to deliver on his promise to reclassify broadband as — what it is — a telecommunications service.  That leaves standing a federal court decision that swept away the Commission’s authority to oversee broadband and stop abusive behavior.  For providers, that’s a dream come true.  Just consider this week’s story that Clear is throttling their customers despite marketing claims they would never do such a thing.

But not to worry, America.  AT&T is “committed to an open Internet,” proclaims the company in a new, feel-good advertisement.  AT&T’s public policy ad claims the company stands with the Obama Administration on delivering universal access to broadband by 2020.

“The future,” the ad claims, “has always been our business.”

The notion is just so warm and fuzzy, it makes me want to adopt puppies and kittens.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Public Policy Commercial.flv[/flv]

AT&T’s newest ad promotes the company’s public policy agenda, which opposes Net Neutrality while still claiming to respect its core principles.  (1 minute)

Of course, AT&T is not so warm and friendly in Washington.  This is the company that dwarfs all other Big Telecoms in spending its customers’ money on hardcore lobbying blitzkriegs on Capitol Hill, drowning Washington in cash and fooling consumers with fake front groups pretending to represent their interests.

Suz, a third-year graduate student at Georgetown University’s Communication, Culture and Technology (CCT) program, noticed some of our earlier coverage on the topic of AT&T and wrote this is a company with a history:

The ad really struck me because of its message and because of the medium. In another class I’m currently taking – The Development of Electronic Media – we just came to the chapter on the development of the telephone and the major influence that AT&T held over that field for the majority of the 20th century. In part because of government regulations supporting the idea of “universal service” and in part because of the desire to connect rural areas with urban areas on the same line of service, the federal powers – though they put a little pressure on after AT&T acquired Western Union with the threat of anti-trust lawsuit – eventually support AT&T’s decompetitive nature by insisting on a compatible network and blocking “duplicative” services, giving AT&T the far-and-away lead in the market.

“The future has always been our business – AT&T.”

Now, there was a lot of history between this “golden age” of monopoly for AT&T and its eventual position today. But what I find striking is the similar-sounding stance to then-CEO Vail’s mission statement of universal service. Their motive may not have been as altruistic as the motto was (one way to attain universal service is to place it in the hands of one provider), but it eventually convinced the government that its powers could be used for good, even at the expense of a competitive (and innovative) marketplace.

Welcome to AT&T v2.0.

AT&T’s dominance in landlines is now at an end, but its influence over the telecommunications medium of the 21st century — the Internet, is just beginning.

The timing could not be more ironic, either.  While AT&T supports the goal for universal broadband service, it is fiercely lobbying to abandon a promise it made a generation earlier to deliver universal landline telephone service.  For that earlier commitment to wire every home, it was granted monopoly status for much of the 20th century.

AT&T has promised to be benevolent if it can remain a completely unregulated mega-player in the broadband industry.  It won’t openly censor opposing viewpoints, but it reserves the right to slow them down to make room for its preferred content partners.  AT&T won’t control what you see or do online, but it does want the right to limit how much of the seeing and doing you can do without overlimit usage fees kicking in.  But no worries, America — AT&T promises full disclosure, so at least you will know you’ve been network managed and overcharged for service.

Jeffrey Burnbaum — writing for the Washington Post — notes AT&T was the gold standard of high powered lobbying and little has changed today:

In the 1980s, AT&T was known for having one of the largest and most skilled corporate offices in Washington. Its representatives were everywhere and well-regarded on Capitol Hill. I remember one encounter between a tall AT&T lobbyist and an elegant McLean matron at a congressional cocktail party. The woman pecked the lobbyist on the cheek and then teased him: “I see you’re wearing your sincere blue suit.” He laughed knowingly — as did the lawmakers standing nearby and with whom he held much sway.

But personal respect wasn’t enough to hold back the tide, either. The telecommunications act of 1996 demonstrated the growing clout of the Baby Bells and AT&T made one last stab at restoring its prowess. In 1998 it hired a former White House deputy chief of staff, James W. Cicconi, to reorganize its Washington presence.

The former aide to George H. W. Bush put together what stands to this day as the model of a contemporary lobbying campaign. Under his guidance, AT&T dispensed tons of campaign cash, formed coalitions with sympathetic-sounding organizations, hired some of the biggest names in downtown Washington as lobbyists and spent millions of dollars on television advertising.

Net Neutrality advocates believe broadband reform is essential in the marketplace duopoly that exists today for most Americans.  With limited options, providers must do more than commit to an open Internet — they must be compelled to deliver it.  The industry’s scare tactics of slowed investment, job losses, and lost innovation are as patently ridiculous — and offensive — as similar claims made by the company over its breakup in the early 1980s.  With the power and influence of lobbying, telecommunications deregulation has allowed them to start putting the pieces back together again.  They are richer and more powerful than ever.

But can they be overcome?  Considering the cable industry deeply underestimated the impact of a consumer outcry over the industry’s abusive practices in the 1980s and early 1990s, the answer remains yes.  Just like the speeds of AT&T’s DSL service, it is just going to take awhile.

The searchlight is looking for cash.

A phone company-backed research group has awarded Verizon the “Top Provider among Market Leaders for multi-protocol label switching and Carrier Ethernet services,” with two 2010 Nemertes PilotHouse Awards. This is the second time Verizon Business has received top honors for Market Leaders in both of these categories since the awards program debuted in 2008.

Nemertes Research, which depends on industry money to conduct research, is behind the awards.  Nemertes, backed by the phone industry-funded Internet Innovation Alliance, is the same group that regularly issues research reports predicting an imminent global “brown-out” of the Internet because of excessive broadband traffic.  In turn, those reports are used to lobby for network management policies that violate Net Neutrality and fuel calls for Internet Overcharging schemes.

Verizon’s press release spends several paragraphs on the defensive, going out of its way to suggest this particular award was not another phoneybaloney recognition created out of thin air with telco money:

“This recognition is particularly meaningful because the rankings are based 100 percent on the views and experiences of actual users, making PilotHouse a truly unique industry award,” said Anthony Recine, vice president of networking and communications solutions for Verizon Business.

[…]PilotHouse Awards are based 100% on the experiences of IT-decision makers. No vendors sponsor this research.

Nemertes itself spends plenty of time trying to cope with skepticism on its own website, but manages to expose another money trail along the way (underlining ours):

6) Is this a “pay-to-play” awards program?

No. Nemertes publishes aggregate and comparative data for all vendors for which we receive a total number of ratings equal to at least 10% of the total pool of ratings. As part of the survey, Nemertes provides a list of vendors derived from extensive research and analysis. There is also another category to allow participants to write in any provider in any category.

9) Can vendors promote the awards?

Yes. After completion of the award reports, Nemertes will notify winners and offer the option of buying award packages that include reprint rights, logo licensing, webinars, issue papers, and award dinner tickets. Buying award packages have no bearing on the results of the PilotHouse awards.

Among the big winners are AT&T, Cisco (the biggest driver of the “exaflood” theory around), Verizon, and Qwest.

What remains unsaid is who pays Nemertes to run an awards program and where the research firm would be without large telecommunications companies purchasing “research” they can safely assume will always find in their favor.

Nemertes’s slogan is “Independence, Integrity, Insight.”  Research groups that truly represent those ideals need not emphasize them because they are embodied in the quality of the research, the firewall that keeps industry money from tainting the findings, and full disclosure of who is paying for what.