A pro-consumer group has released a new report that refutes claims from the telecommunications industry that broadband reform represents an investment killer and takeover of the Internet by the Obama Administration.

Free Press this week challenging 10 of the wildest claims in its report, “The Truth About the Third Way: Separating Fact from Fiction in the FCC Reclassification Debate.” Aparna Sridhar, Free Press’ Policy Counsel used publicly available evidence to effectively debunk the multi-million dollar lobbying campaign to stop broadband reform.

Unfortunately, more than a handful in Congress have accepted those discredited claims as fact.  Free Press hopes truth will prevail over the enormous money-fueled opposition effort, especially as the FCC begins proceedings next week on its proposed “Third Way” approach to broadband oversight. The agency is expected to issue a Notice of Inquiry and to seek public comment on the issues of broadband reform and reclassification.

A sampling from the report, which we encourage you to read:

Fiction #3: Placing broadband services back under the Commission’s explicit authority will stifle investment in broadband networks.

Fact: The FCC’s proposed policy merely preserves the status quo prior to the recent uncertainty created by the federal appeals court ruling. As a result, it should have little to no effect on company investment decisions.

Many industry representatives and investment analysts have dismissed the notion that the FCC’s Third Way will deter investment. Furthermore, history contradicts the claim that applying some of the rules contained in Title II of the Communications Act to broadband service providers (as the Commission has proposed) will adversely affect investment in the networks. Telecommunications industry investments soared during the period when carriers were subject to the full panoply of rules contained in Title II. Investments only began decreasing once the FCC began dismantling many of the pro-competition rules stemming from this part of the Communications Act.

As we've said at Stop the Cap! for two years now, providers' investments in upgrading and expanding their networks are declining, even as demand (and prices) for those services are increasing.

Fiction #4: Placing broadband services back under the FCC’s explicit authority will lead to job losses in the telecom sector.

Fact: The telecommunications sector accelerated its job-shedding following industry consolidation and FCC deregulation, a trend that continues unabated even as company revenues reach historic highs.

The notion that the FCC’s move to re-establish its authority over broadband networks will harm employment is also nothing more than unsupported rhetoric. The simple reality is this sector accelerated its job-shedding following industry consolidation and FCC deregulation. And this trend continued even as overall revenues in the sector continued to expand. Unfortunately, the underlying market economics and company statements suggest this trend will continue regardless of how the FCC acts on the regulatory authority question.

So much for the argument that regulation will cause job losses. As this plainly illustrates, even as profits fatten at AT&T, Qwest and Verizon, employment numbers are on a steep decline in today's deregulated marketplace.

Fiction # 7: The FCC’s Third Way proposal is an unprecedented power-grab which departs from Congress’s intent to leave the Internet unregulated.

Fact: The FCC’s proposal will bring the Commission’s approach to broadband networks in harmony with longstanding principles in communications policy. The law always has recognized a distinction between communications infrastructure (like broadband networks) and the content that travels over that infrastructure (such as websites on the Internet). In fact, it was the Powell FCC’s decision to abandon oversight over broadband networks that represented a radical and irresponsible shift — by treating basic connectivity services just like content, the Powell FCC undermined the Commission ability to make pro-competitive, pro-consumer policies in the broadband space. This FCC’s proposal would return to the first principles of communications policy that fostered innovation, competition and investment in the first place.

Fiction #8: The FCC’s proposal would amount to a “government takeover of the Internet.”

Fact: The FCC’s proposal would draw a line between basic two-way communications — which have always been regulated by the FCC — and Internet applications and websites, which would remain unregulated by the FCC. None of the parties in the debate before the FCC have suggested that the FCC impose any kind of content regulation on the Internet. Nor has anyone suggested that the government take over the physical infrastructure that forms the Internet. Rather, the FCC is proposing to apply some basic, light-touch rules of the road to the owners of broadband networks.

These rules will attempt to encourage private investment, promote competition, and foster innovation, economic growth, and job creation. Further, restoring its regulatory framework back in harmony with the law will insure the FCC has basic consumer protection authority.

Rep. Gene Green (D-AT&T)

The digital divide in broadband has never been just a rural issue.  Some of America’s largest cities are filled with families who cannot afford the prices some broadband providers charge for access.  So it came as quite a surprise that at least eight members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) decided to oppose the Obama Administration’s efforts to move forward on its telecom agenda of better broadband and Net Neutrality.

It also disturbed James Rucker, executive director of ColorOfChange.org, whose 600,000 members are part of America’s largest African-American online political organization.

Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas/AT&T) circulated a letter opposing regulatory intervention in broadband around Capitol Hill looking for additional signatures from members of Congress.  Green’s letter, directed to Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski, is the public policy equivalent of a biggie-sized series of lies, distortions, and misrepresentations.  Green is so proud of his efforts, constituents can’t find word one about it on his website. Instead, Green claims he is working “to expand Internet access and improve Internet competition, in order to reduce access prices and close the ‘Digital Divide’ between those online and those who are not.'”

Sure he is.

ColorOfChange urged members of Congress not to co-sign Green’s letter:

This letter is not the first time we’ve seen deceptive language or outright misinformation used to advocate against protecting network neutrality. In fact, the telecom industry has for years been engaged in a well-coordinated and massively funded campaign to intentionally misinform the public, Congress, and public interest groups about net neutrality, successfully confusing the issue to their advantage. The industry has spent millions of dollars on advertising, public relations, and lobbying efforts — using industry front groups, ads in Capitol Hill newspapers, and lobbyists. Sadly, the industry in recent years has also managed to enlist members of Congress and advocacy organizations rooted in communities of color to echo misleading and false arguments about net neutrality. This too has been a concern for many ColorOfChange members and has been the subject of our campaign work. While it has a right to engage in the public discourse about this issue, the telecommunications industry has demonstrated a disinterest in honest debate, spreading misinformation that plays on ignorance about the issue, and the somewhat confusing, technical language that surrounds it.

Several of the advocacy groups involved take substantial contributions from telecom companies — notably AT&T and Verizon, or have telecom interests serving on their board of directors.  When a minority advocacy group suddenly starts parroting AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast talking points, just follow the money.

Unfortunately, 74 Democrats, including eight members of the CBC aren’t listening to ColorOfChange or their constituents, and co-signed Green’s letter.  James Rucker notes:

Last week, I urged black members of Congress not to sign this letter. But we quickly learned that Representatives G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Lacy Clay (D-MO), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Greg Meeks (D-NY), Bobby Rush (D-IL), and Bennie Thompson (D-MS) didn’t get the message.

Those wondering why these eight members were in such a hurry to disconnect their constituents’ interests need only consider the enormous campaign contributions sent to them by the phone and cable industry:

Source: Opensecrets.org

That’s only for this year — and we’re only five months into 2010.  Co-signing Green’s letter could add an extra zero to the amount on the next check.

Rep. Green himself is no stranger to campaign contributions from telecom companies.  So far in 2010, he’s accepted money from both AT&T, Verizon, and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.  Since 2000, every time a major public policy debate fires up over telecommunications issues, AT&T (and its predecessor SBC) increased the amount on Green’s check.  During the 2004-2006 cycle, when SBC sought a merger with AT&T, SBC contributed $11,500 to Rep. Green.  During the first round of the battle to secure Net Neutrality in 2006-2007, AT&T was Green’s top donor with a $15,000 contribution.

ColorOfChange.org today announced a new campaign directed towards the eight CBC members who co-signed Green’s letter.

“Our members are deeply concerned that by signing Green’s letter, black members of Congress are taking a stance that fails to secure our digital rights,” said James Rucker, executive director of ColorOfChange.org. “Some CBC members have perhaps signed Rep. Green’s letter without fully understanding what is at stake while others seem to know, but are serving other interests. There is a significant correlation between those leading the charge and those accepting significant contributions from the industry which stands to benefit from the FCC being rendered impotent. In either case, our members are eager to make clear how important this issue is to our community and to Americans in general, and to explain why they see this as a 21st century civil rights issue.”

The group is calling on members to place more than 1,750 phone calls to all eight representatives, urging they stop representing the interests of phone and cable companies and start representing the interests of their constituents.  ColorOfChange is asking everyone to ask these members to promptly remove their names from Rep. Green’s letter, which represents little more than propaganda talking points from big telecom.

Last month, a federal court removed the FCC’s authority to enact the most basic consumer protections over broadband given its current classification, which was decided upon by a previous set of commissioners. The court ruled that the agency did not have the authority to institute the desired protections while broadband was designated an information (or Title I) service, over which the FCC has limited jurisdiction. The ruling prevented the FCC from implementing proposed rules on network neutrality and cast a cloud of uncertainty over its authority to implement portions of the National Broadband Plan intended to close the digital divide.

Earlier this month, the FCC announced it would reassert its authority to enact limited regulation of broadband by reclassifying it as a communication (or Title II) service. In response, telecommunications industry lobbyists have stepped up their efforts to influence lawmakers. Rep. Green’s letter parrots long-debunked arguments that serve the interests of major industry players and threaten the FCC’s ability to make rulings that would expand broadband access.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fox News Big Brother Getting Bigger 5-11-10.mp4[/flv]

Fox News has a special way of conflating consumer protection rules with a “takeover” of private business. Megyn Kelly moderates a “fair and balanced” debate between Jim Harper of the Cato Institute and Josh Silver of Free Press. (4 minutes)

Kelly frames the debate as an Obama Administration “takeover of the Internet, is it good or bad?”

With a setup like that, Silver had his work cut out for him.

Unfortunately, whenever Silver spoke, Kelly interrupted, at one point telling him discussions about “Net Neutrality” were way above the heads of the typical Fox News viewer.

For viewers keeping score at home, here is how Kelly divided up the time:

• Harper: 1 minute, 17 seconds with no interruptions
• Silver: 47 seconds, interrupted twice

Kelly’s framing of the issue put her squarely in Harper’s camp, which effectively added an extra 104 seconds of Obama paranoia cheerleading.

We report. You decide.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski wins the Cowardly Lion Award for reports he's set to sell out American consumers for corporate interests

The Washington Post this morning reports FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is preparing to sell out a free and open Internet by adopting a provider appeasement policy that would abandon consumers and broadband users to the whims of big telecom companies.

In an extraordinarily disappointing move by the Obama Administration, which promised to adopt Net Neutrality and better broadband service for consumers, political expediency and typical Democratic party cowardice are likely to derail any hope for adopting consumer protections for the Internet.

Three sources at the [FCC] said Genachowski has not made a final decision but has indicated in recent discussions that he is leaning toward keeping in place the current regulatory framework for broadband services but making some changes that would still bolster the FCC’s chances of overseeing some broadband policies.

The sources said Genachowski thinks “reclassifying” broadband to allow for more regulation would be overly burdensome on carriers and would deter investment. But they said he also thinks the current regulatory framework would lead to constant legal challenges to the FCC’s authority every time it attempted to pursue a broadband policy.

Genachowski is living in a dream world — the non-reality-based community — if he believes for a second the nice telecom industry will happily go along with his plans for better broadband while leaving the current anti-competitive duopolistic framework of deregulation in place.

Telling a multi-billion dollar broadband industry to keep their paws off content and preserve an open and free network would be burdensome… for Stalin.  It should not be for AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon.  If it is, that is why we are supposed to have checks and balances to protect Americans from a corporate oligarchy.  But money talks, and despite all of the repeated promises from President Barack Obama to preserve an open Internet, once the political pressure gets applied and the Money Party of corporate contributions gets going, you can always count on these people to cave in the end. “What Net Neutrality promise?”

Stop the Cap! supporters, with the help of a few “get it done” elected officials and other consumers who stood up and said “no more” to Time Warner Cable and the North Carolina legislature, managed to beat back Internet Overcharging experiments and corporate-friendly legislation to ban municipal broadband networks.  We accomplished both in a matter of weeks last year.  What was our secret?  Integrity.  We’re not behest to corporate lobbyists and industry-funded think tanks who hold the keys to post-administration job opportunities with super-sized salaries.  The Obama Administration and its appointed FCC chairman seem utterly impotent to do what a regulatory agency is supposed to do — regulate.  We might as well have Neville Chamberlain as FCC Chairman, because consumers are starting to feel a bit like 1938 Czechoslovakia, about to be sold out for peace inside the Beltway.

Readers, we will not be Julius Genachowski’s Tylenol.  To the contrary.  Chairman Genachowski appears exceptionally naive to believe he can enact any of his broadband policies over lawsuit-happy big telecoms that will promptly have them tossed out in court rulings.  If you and I already know this, why doesn’t he?  We need bold action, not policy capitulation.  Perhaps it’s time to replace the chairman with someone who isn’t afraid to do the job.

It always shocks me when we elect an administration to lead on the issues it pursues during an election, and then cowers in fear and abandons the American people the moment some lobbyists turn up the heat and start handing out checks.  Even when the overwhelming majority of Americans want a free and open Internet, somehow a handful of bureaucrats in Washington are too afraid to actually get the job done.

“The telephone and cable companies will object to any path the chairman takes,” said Art Brodsky, a spokesman for Public Knowledge, told the Post. “He might as well take the one that best protects consumers and is most legally sound.”

It’s too bad that is considered the radical solution in a lobbyist-infested Washington.  It looks like we’re going to need to start counting the money and making it clear in no uncertain terms that abandoning consumers means we’ll abandon them at the next election.

Marvin Ammori, a CyberLaw Advocate:

If the Post story is predictive, there is almost no list of “horribles” that are not fair game. I’m listing ten. Most of these “horribles” have actually happened as business practices where the carriers got their way. And media companies are believed to refuse ads or stories that criticize them or oppose their position.

Comcast (or AT&T or Verizon or Time Warner Cable) could do any of the following and the FCC could do Big Fat Nothing:

(1) Block your tweets, if you criticize Comcast’s service or its merger, especially if you use the #ComcastSucks hashtag.

(2) Block your vote to the consumerist.com, when you vote Comcast the worst company in the nation. No need for such traffic to get through.

(3) Force every candidate for election to register their campaign-donations webpage and abide by the same weird rules that apply to donations by text message.

(4) Comcast could even require a “processing fee,” becoming the Ticketmaster of campaign contributions.

(5) Comcast could reserve the right to approve of every campaign online and every mass email to a political party’s or advocacy group’s list (as they do with text message short codes).

(6) If you create a small online business and hit it big, threaten to block your business unless you share 1/3 or more of all your revenues with them (apps on the iPhone app stores often are forced to give up a 1/3 or more; so are cable channels on cable TV).

(7) Block all peer to peer technologies, even those used for software developers to share software, distribute patches (world of warcraft), distribute open source software (Linux). In fact, Comcast has shown it would love to do this.

(8) Block Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, Moveon.org (and its emails), because of an “exclusive” deal with other blogs. Or alternatively, block FoxNews.com because of a deal with NBC and MSNBC.

(9) Monitor everything you do online and sell it to advertisers, something else that some phone and cable have done, with the help of a shady spyware company.

(10) Lie to you about what they’re blocking and what they’re monitoring. Hell, the FCC wouldn’t have any authority to make them honest. The FCC couldn’t punish them.

<

p style=”text-align: center; padding-left: 30px;”>

Bachmann

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota), appeared on Sean Hannity’s show last night to go way over the top, telling Fox News viewers the Obama Administration was supporting Net Neutrality as part of an effort to censor the Internet.

Oh sure, that’s all they have left now, is they use pejorative terms, hateful terms, against those who are carrying the message. So whether they’re attacking conservative talk radio, or conservative TV, or whether it’s Internet sites — I mean, let’s face it, what’s the Obama administration doing? They’re advocating Net Neutrality, which is essentially censorship of the Internet.

This is the Obama administration advocating censorship of the Internet. Why? They want to silence the voices that are opposing them.

This isn’t the first time this talking point has been used.  Glenn Beck fancies Net Neutrality in much the same world view, helped along by the likes of astroturfers like Americans for Prosperity’s Phil Kerpen.  Kerpen’s group, among others, receives corporate money to drag down consumer protections that would stop Internet providers from delivering less service to you at an ever-increasing price. If it takes suckering Fox News viewers into believing Net Neutrality is an Obama plot to shut down freedom of speech on the Internet, so be it.

Of course, Bachmann’s tirade is the opposite of reality.  She is either clueless about the concept, or has cynically bought a ticket on the PsychoTalk Express, delivering fear-based, fictional talking points about online freedom.  Net Neutrality preserves freedom of speech on the Internet, even for misinformed folks like Michele Bachmann, in at least two ways:

1. Your Internet Provider cannot shut down your website if they oppose your views;
2. A provider must assure access to your website unencumbered by speed throttles or other impediments they say can be removed… for the right price.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fox News Michele Bachmann Net Neutrality 4-20-10.flv[/flv]

Rep. Michele Bachmann’s views on Net Neutrality were aired on Sean Hannity’s show last night.  (1 minute)