One of the things we have tried to teach readers over the last few years is how important it is to follow the money trail when encountering a group, politician, or researcher counter-intuitively arguing “up is down” or “right is left.”  So when a business columnist in the Press of Atlantic City slammed rural broadband as a service provided “to a group of people who mostly don’t want it,” we started digging:

The FCC claims this effort will give 7 million rural people reliable access to high-speed Internet connections. So the hundreds of millions of urban and suburban Americans who wish their Internet was faster and more reliable will pay for 2 percent of us to get just that.

Or maybe we’ll be paying for redundant, overpriced telecom work by companies that donate to rural politicians.

Federal stimulus spending in response to the recession already included $7.2 billion for this same purpose. An analysis by Navigant Economics of three big projects under that Broadband Initiatives Program found:

Even “areas in which very high proportions of households were already served by multiple existing broadband providers” were eligible for subsidized broadband work.

The author’s suspicion that money was involved in all this was correct, but he completely missed who was boarding the money train.

Navigant Economics, the “research group” that produced the inflammatory report slamming rural broadband funding, happens to count AT&T as one of its important clients.

The group, a subsidiary of Navigant Consulting, provides economic and financial analysis of legal and business issues to law firms, corporations and government agencies.

In fact, Navigant pitches its services to a range of corporate clients:

Navigant Economics provides economic analysis in litigation and regulatory proceedings involving competition issues. Our experts have provided testimony in proceedings before District Courts, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and numerous state Public Utilities Commissions.

We provide economic analysis and testimony in connection with mergers and acquisitions and antitrust claims of:

• Anticompetitive horizontal agreements (price fixing, bid rigging, potential anticompetitive effects of joint ventures)
• Unilateral conduct (predatory pricing, refusals to deal, monopolization via patent fraud)
• Vertical restraints (exclusive dealing, requirement contracting, tying and bundling)

We also offer economic analysis and testimony on issues of price and rate of return regulation, mandatory access, quality of service, and benefit-cost analysis, with especial expertise in regulatory proceedings involving communications and the Internet (software and hardware sectors, network unbundling and “net neutrality” issues affecting telecom and cable firms, retransmission consent and other content-related issues, and the range of wireless spectrum issues) and all types of energy markets.

Phillip "Making Sense, Not Dollars" Dampier

The result is what critics refer to as “dollar a holler research” — bought-and-paid-for-results that coincidentally fit the framework of a client’s public policy agenda.  In this case, AT&T (among other phone companies) has fretted about broadband stimulus funding ever since the Obama Administration made it clear the industry would not collectively control the program or reward themselves at taxpayer expense.  In addition to criticizing the decision-making process, phone and cable companies have objected to numerous applicants who applied for grants to build networks serving communities those companies have ignored or under-served for years.

To say AT&T has no vested interest in the outcome of rural broadband would be the first major understatement of 2012.

Martyn Roetter with MFR Consulting said Navigant was giving a bad name to researchers.

“Navigant Economics as well as other economists in academia and the consulting profession seem increasingly prepared to support arguments in favor of their clients’ desires and goals regardless of whether they are reasonable or preposterous,” Roetter wrote. “Unfortunately this behavior tends to blur the distinction between (a) respectable advocacy with findings based on evidence and rational arguments and (b) indefensible nonsense, discrediting both academics and consultants.”

Navigant spent much of 2011 trying to convince regulators and the public that T-Mobile actually doesn’t compete with AT&T, so there should be no problem letting the two companies merge.  Readers win no prizes guessing who paid for that stunner of a conclusion.  Thankfully, the Department of Justice quickly dismissed that notion as a whole lot of hooey.

Navigant’s second ludicrous conclusion is that there is no rural broadband availability problem.  Navigant has a love affair with slow speed, spotty DSL (sold by AT&T) and heavily-capped 3G wireless (also sold by AT&T) as the Frankincense and Myrrh of rural Internet life.  With those, you don’t need any broadband expansion (particularly from a third party interloper).

“The notion that a nominal maximum speed in a shared radio access network is comparable to a nominal maximum speed of a fixed broadband line to a location is a striking example of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, of the very different operating characteristics and capabilities of these two transmission media,” Roetter soberly observed.

But he knows better.

Roetter

Kevin Post, columnist for the Press of Atlantic City, bought Navigant’s conclusions hook, line, and sinker and repeated them in the press.  In fact, he upped the ante parroting the time-honored provider argument that rural America doesn’t need 21st century broadband because, well, they just don’t want it:

This costly effort is aimed at bringing broadband to a group of people who mostly don’t want it, according to a 2010 Pew Internet survey.

Half of Americans who don’t use the Internet told Pew that the main reason is they don’t find it relevant to their lives.

Only one in 10 nonusers said they would be interested in starting to use the Internet sometime in the future.

Actually, the Pew Internet survey came well before Navigant’s outlandish conclusions, and didn’t directly address the rural broadband availability problem.  Instead, Pew was looking at broadband adoption rates, primarily in places that already have one or more broadband providers.  Pew found what providers have already realized themselves: broadband growth and adoption is slowing; everyone who wants the service in urban America already has it or wants it.  Those that don’t are typically older and lack computers or are too poor to afford the asking price.

Post’s suggestion that a Pew Study concluded rural America does not want broadband service is an exercise in fixing the facts.

That’s the magic of the Dollar-a-Holler Echo Machine.  Big telecom companies hire public policy consultants and researchers to find their way to “scientific” evidence proving their corporate agenda, and then feeds the “facts” and “research” to receptive reporters, astroturf “consumer groups,” and politicians to bolster their case.  It’s not AT&T suggesting there is no rural broadband problem — it’s Navigant Economics.

As Roetter writes, “A basic knowledge of wireless markets exposes the […] indefensible nature of the positions outlined above. A policy based on ‘tell me what you want to hear, pay me, and I will reproduce it all regardless of its merits’ is a disservice to professionals who try to remain objective and independent, i.e. professional.”

Divided Loyalties? -- Mayor John Marks

A growing scandal involving AT&T and the mayor of the state capital of Florida has further exposed the link between AT&T’s pay-for-play public policy agenda and the politicians willing to act as puppets for the phone company’s interests.

Tallahassee Mayor John Marks strongly promoted an Atlanta nonprofit group to participate in a $1.6 million dollar federal broadband grant to expand Internet access to the urban poor and train disadvantaged citizens to navigate the online world, without disclosing he was a paid adviser to the group.

What the rest of the city never knew is that the Alliance for Digital Equality (ADE) is little more than an AT&T astroturf effort — a front group almost entirely funded by AT&T that actually did almost nothing to bring Internet access to anyone.

The Alliance for Digital Equality, a group supposedly focused on erasing the digital divide, spends an inordinate amount of time running radio ads under the alias of “Alliance for Equal Access” for competition in cable-TV… when that competition comes from AT&T U-verse. Listen to two radio commercials run in Georgia and Tennessee, both AT&T service areas, promoting legislation that was introduced at the behest of AT&T and promoted by ADE. (2 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

In fact, an investigation by a Tallahassee newspaper reviewing the group’s federal tax returns found four of every five dollars spent by ADE went to board members, consultants, lawyers, and media companies for the purpose of promoting AT&T’s agenda against Net Neutrality and for the company’s various business interests:

Marks also didn’t mention when he brought ADE to the City Commission in September 2010 that AT&T has been paying him since the early 1990s as a lawyer and consultant.

Tax returns for ADE show it got $7.36 million from AT&T from 2007 through 2009. Among its expenses, it spent $2.7 million on consulting and legal fees, $1.2 million on travel, $1.1 million on media and communications and $931,509 in pay to officers and board of advisers members.

ADE spent nothing on projects to provide Internet access to underserved areas from 2007-09. It wasn’t created to do so. The group’s mission, as reported to the IRS, was to advocate “technology inflows to underserved communities by interacting with elected officials, policymakers at all levels of government and private sectors.”

In those interactions, ADE presented the same message as AT&T in opposition to greater price regulation of the Internet.

View the 2007, 2008, and 2009 tax returns for the Alliance for Digital Equality yourself.

Some of ADE’s officers and board members are familiar to Stop the Cap! readers as loyal AT&T advocates.  Even worse, many of them routinely play the “race card” whenever AT&T’s agenda is threatened.  Take Shirley Franklin.  She is the former mayor of Atlanta, but these days her biggest constituent is AT&T.  Last August, Franklin helped lead an attack against Free Press, a consumer advocacy group, that she said “target[ed] women, African-Americans and other minorities” after the group complained about the ties between several civil and minority rights organizations and AT&T.

ADE unsurprisingly is also all-for the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile

Julius Hollis, chairman and founder of the Alliance for Digital Equality, was even more strident.

“I am extremely disappointed in the Free Press, not only in its policies and tactics that they are attempting deploy in their strategy paper, but equally disturbing are its attempts to portray the African-American and Latino consumers as expendable in their efforts to promote Net Neutrality,” Hollis said last year. “In my opinion, this is going back to the tactics that were used in the Jim Crow era by segregationists. It’s no better than what was used in the Willie Horton playbook by Lee Atwater who, upon his deathbed, asked for forgiveness for using such political behavior tactics.”

Stop the Cap! exposed ADE ourselves as a “dollar-a-holler” advocate in August 2010 when we learned the majority of the group’s funds came from AT&T.

Anne Landman, managing editor of the Center for Media and Democracy, told the Tallahassee Democrat the purpose of groups almost entirely sponsored by a single corporate interest is to obfuscate the messenger. “It’s a nontransparent way of operating,” she said. “People don’t know who’s behind these efforts. So it’s fake, and it’s phony, and it gives people wrong information. It’s designed to purposely fool people.”

The newspaper spent months trying to track down financial reports, tax filings, and other documentation about the group, and ran into repeated resistance.  At one point, written requests sent to the group’s headquarters in Atlanta were returned unopened and marked “refused.”

ADE’s corporate influence is bad enough, but when the group uses race, gender, and economic cards to attack real public interest groups, it raises eyebrows, particularly when the group doing the attacking is financed by a corporate entity.  The Black Agenda Report, a website that can hardly be accused of racism, called out Franklin and the organization she represents.

The newspaper’s investigation also found all of ADE’s employees were actually independent contractors.  Non-profit group experts claim the entire structure of ADE is unusual because it funnels all of its money through contractors.

Tallahassee Mayor John Marks is apparently one of them, having received $86,000 as a member of ADE’s board of advisers in addition to AT&T paying him directly as a lawyer and consultant.

With the recent revelations, Tallahassee’s broadband grant is now in ruins and will be returned, unspent.  Marks is reportedly under investigation by the FBI for potential corruption.  And another AT&T astroturf effort has been exposed and has blown up in the company’s face.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCTV Tallahassee Mayor Under Fire Over ATT-ADE Ethics Scandal 3-29-11 – 9-15-11.flv[/flv]

Stop the Cap! has compiled almost a year of coverage of the burgeoning scandal in the Tallahassee mayor’s office, courtesy of WCTV-TV, which has doggedly pursued the scandal with assistance from its news partner Tallahassee Reports.  (10 minutes)

A major scandal in one of the nation’s most important gay civil rights organizations has inadvertently exposed AT&T’s public policy skunkworks — a dollar-a-holler operation to advocate for the company’s merger with T-Mobile, complete with pre-written advocacy letters, traded favors and promises of support from other board members, paid for with big financial contributions.

When it was all over, the president of Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) resigned, his ties to a Republican operative board member connected with AT&T were exposed, and the progressive gay and lesbian media outed the whole sordid affair — painting one of the clearest pictures yet of how civil rights groups get into the unenviable position of trading their good name for a piece of big business action.

As Stop the Cap! has reported for nearly three years now, there is a cottage industry in the non-profit sector collecting favors and contributions in return for letters on organization letterhead supporting the public policy agendas of their corporate sponsors.  Honest non-profit groups won’t engage on issues that have little or no connection to their mission statements, but other groups have relaxed those standards to meet fundraising goals or to deal with internal board politics.

The latter appears to be the most prominent reason for GLAAD’s poorly managed entry into the debate on Net Neutrality and AT&T’s merger targets — the first time the group has ever spoken up about a corporate merger.  Because so many in the gay, lesbian, and transgendered community are politically aware, it came as quite a shock when GLAAD suddenly dove into two issues most assumed were not relevant to the group’s mission:

GLAAD Net Neutrality Intrigue: On January 4, 2010, GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios signed a letter to the Federal Communications Commission expressing “concern” about the implementation of formal protection of the open Internet through Net Neutrality.  At the time, nothing about Barrios’ letter seemed suspicious.  In fact, it was typical of the type and tone of concern trolling by certain groups that could pay a stiff price if rank and file members ever found out.  But several members did and raised hell with GLAAD’s leadership over the issue.  Barrios evidently panicked, quickly sending a follow-up letter to the FCC claiming his signature was forged and begging the ‘fake’ submission be withdrawn.  Ironically, he added the views in the original letter, unclear as they were, did not represent GLAAD’s position on Net Neutrality, whatever it was.

GLAAD Loves AT&T and T-Mobile’s Merger: On May 31st, Barrios joined the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce in penning a joint letter advocating the merger because, apparently, gay people love 4G, artistic use of the Internet, and telemedicine.  Gay groups immediately pounced, some describing the letter bizarre, others potentially offensive.  The second letter ignited an all-out firestorm against GLAAD’s leadership, particularly considering AT&T has donated profusely to GLAAD over the years, and gay people have no more love towards AT&T and its business agenda than anyone else.

Signorile

Head scratching over why GLAAD was obsessed with delivering a helping hand to AT&T was soon followed by detailed investigations which began to uncover the important underlying facts.

One pivotal moment came from Michelangelo Signorile, a long-time gay activist and radio talk show host, who interviewed GLAAD’s former board co-chair, Laurie Perper.  Perper left GLAAD suggesting its board was in turmoil under the leadership of Barrios.  In her words, Barrios’ efforts to shore up his presidency included trading an AT&T advocacy letter for a company-connected board member’s continued support.

Perper also dismissed Barrios’ suggestion that the letter to the FCC about Net Neutrality was forged.  Instead, she claims, Barrios tried to blame it on his administrative assistant, Jeanne Christiano, who he claimed ambitiously sent the letter without his authorization.

Former GLAAD board co-chair Laurie Perper talks with Michelangelo Signorile about the connection between AT&T and GLAAD’s president. June 7, 2011. (11 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Since that interview, Barrios’ has come clean about who wrote the Net Neutrality letter.  According to Barrios, AT&T sent the talking points to include in the letter and he authorized it:

The letter’s origins lay with AT&T; the telecom giant sent Barrios suggested wording for another letter to the FCC. Barrios’ special assistant used the language verbatim to create the letter, signed his name to it, and sent it in.

Barrios recounts that he was at an airport when his assistant called him to go through some items on his agenda. In a hurry to board his plane, when she told him that “they” wanted him to send in the letter to the FCC, Barrios assumed he needed to resend his first letter again. He authorized her to send the letter without any oversight.

[…] “This was from a letter with language from AT&T suggesting that we support this, and at the time, it was not something I had seen,” Barrios said. “When I saw it, we withdrew it to reflect our perspective.”

Barrios: Now updating his resume

Further investigations uncovered AT&T-connected board member Troup Coronado. Many activists were surprised to learn learn Coronado is or was a paid consultant for AT&T and a Republican operative who used to work for Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).  While involved in Congress, Coronado worked to install judges hostile to gay and lesbian rights on the federal bench.  Today, he is a board member overseeing one of the nation’s most important gay and lesbian rights groups.

That revelation went over about as well as one could expect, and within a week, Barrios submitted his resignation, and calls for Coronado to leave are growing louder by the hour.

The intrigue has thrown GLAAD into full scale damage control mode, even as former board members like Perper call the group hopelessly brand tarnished and advocate its disbanding.  It also embarrasses AT&T by further exposing the sock-puppetry operations it runs to build phantom support for its business and policy agenda.

How Former and Current FCC Employees Helped Other Gay Groups (Heart) AT&T

GLAAD is not the only LGBT group in the chorus conducted by AT&T.  The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce is no more friendly to consumer interests than any other Chamber of Commerce, and their participation in fronting for AT&T was to be expected.  But the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force is now repenting for their own involvement in AT&T’s bought and paid for parade:

“The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force submitted a letter to the Federal Communications Commission on Jan. 5, 2010, about rules and regulations regarding net neutrality. The letter was a response to a request by AT&T,” she said. “However, we quickly realized that we had not gone through an appropriate internal process on such policy matters and that the Jan. 5 letter did not accurately reflect our views and was a mistake. As a result, on Jan. 14, the Task Force submitted an additional letter to the FCC clarifying the organization’s position on net neutrality.”

“The Task Force has established a clearer internal review process that applies to any request for sign-on or policy endorsement from any group, organization or corporate partner. We have not issued any additional letters on net neutrality. Additionally the Task Force has declined requests from our corporate partner AT&T for further action regarding this issue and declined requests to write a letter regarding the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile.”

Perhaps even more disturbing, new evidence is emerging that the FCC itself may be encouraging some of these civil rights groups to participate in discussions about controversial industry events.  The Bilerico Project discovered FCC chief Bill Lake meeting with GLAAD to talk specifically about how the group could become involved in public policy debates:

What’s not disclosed, however, is that Robinson, Barrios and board member Anthony Varona met with FCC chief Bill Lake and Deputy Director Bob Radcliffe in mid-May of last year. Varona is a former FCC attorney.

“Rashad, Jarrett and Tony met with the FCC in May 2010 to discuss GLAAD’s involvement in present and future FCC proceedings (including broadband proliferation items, public interest programming initiatives, etc.),” according to Rich Ferraro, GLAAD’s Director of Communications. The group denies that they took a formal position on any matter pending before the FCC at the time.

If true, this could link corporate astroturfing and dollar-a-holler advocacy to FCC insiders currently at the agency, as well as those who used to work there.

A word to the wise: if your non-profit needs cash, ask for contributions from your members.  Don’t sell out your good name for a billion-dollar corporate merger.  The position you protect may turn out to be your own.

The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association this week took some time out to go all out for AT&T’s proposed merger with T-Mobile.  In addition to successfully navigating the FCC’s arcane comment filing system to submit their comments in favor of the merger, the group also penned a lengthy, favorable guest blog for Washington, D.C. inside-the-beltway-favorite, The Hill newspaper:

The expansion of next-generation wireless broadband envisioned by the T-Mobile and AT&T merger, for example, is critical for the next stage of rural America’s evolution and success. It will allow ranchers, farmers, and all rural residents who have been traditionally underserved to finally gain access to the best that mobile broadband has to offer, including faster and more reliable connections. We strongly encourage the Federal Communications Commission to support these developments as an investment in both the current and future generations of agricultural producers and small communities across rural America.

The cattlemen’s group has had a lot to say about telecommunications issues, especially mergers and acquisitions.  It was cited by Verizon as a supporter of its merger with Alltel in 2008, signed a joint letter in 2008 from industry-connected Connected Nation for a broadband plan compatible with the interests of the nation’s largest cable and phone companies, wrote a letter to the FCC opposing Net Neutrality in 2009, and submitted two pages of comments in May favoring the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile.

Apparently there is plenty of free time on the ranch to ponder billion dollar telecommunications mergers.

The argument from the group is that permitting mergers and blocking open net policies like Net Neutrality will convince carriers to provide enhanced service in rural areas where cattle ranches predominate.  But facts in evidence illustrate how wrong-headed that argument is:

• Verizon’s merger with Alltel has done nothing to bring its LTE network to rural America.  Verizon is focusing LTE upgrades on the markets where it makes the most business sense, and that does not include rural Texas or Oklahoma;
• The National Broadband Plan has directed stimulus funding for rural projects that are most likely to reach their ranch members — wireless ISPs and rural DSL.  The cattlemen’s group has nothing to say about either provider;
• Net Neutrality and the policies of an open and free Internet have no real impact on rural broadband deployment.  The same companies refusing to provide service yesterday are still refusing to provide service today, and that includes completely exempted wireless providers;
• T-Mobile’s urban-suburban focus is a mainstay of its business plan.  T-Mobile has never prioritized rural America as a viable service area, relying on roaming agreements to fill in service gaps.  Combining its urban-focused wireless infrastructure with AT&T will add nothing to the rural wireless experience.

The Washington Post finds financial connections between AT&T and the cattlemen group.

Advocating for a merger with T-Mobile makes about as much sense as the group advocating for a T-Mobile merger with Leap Wireless’ Cricket or MetroPCS.  All have a record of indifference about providing service in rural areas themselves.

So why does the group persist in fronting for AT&T’s public policy agenda?  Cecilia Kang at the Washington Post tweeted the obvious answer — they receive support from AT&T.

The piece for The Hill was penned by Jess Peterson, the cattlemen group’s executive vice president.  But Peterson has a second career: president of Washington, D.C.-based Western Skies Strategies, a lobbying firm that promises “success and profitability to our valued clients every time.”

The concept of dollar-a-holler public advocacy is not new, but AT&T is the Master of the Astroturf Universe.  The Center for Responsive Politics notes that from 1989 to 2010, no single company spent more on campaign contributions than AT&T.  Since 2008, more than $1.25 million has been “donated” to politically-connected charities and those willing to lend their name and reputation to back the company’s public policy agenda.

Facts have a hard time penetrating piles of cash, but here are some anyway:

1. T-Mobile’s combination with AT&T may create additional capacity for the combined company, but almost entirely in urban and suburban areas that will do nothing to help rural wireless.
2. No telecommunications company has a track record of providing service in areas unprofitable to serve or fail return on investment demands.  No merger will change that.
3. Promises for network upgrades already committed in long-range business plans do not sweeten a bitter deal for Americans concerned about competition in the wireless marketplace.
4. T-Mobile’s track record as being the most market-disruptive in pricing and innovation will be eliminated in a merger with America’s lowest rated wireless carrier.
5. Any excitement for rural wireless broadband from AT&T is tempered when would-be customers realize the company enforces a 2GB usage cap with an overlimit fee on their smartphone data plans — an Internet Overcharging scheme more punishing than either Verizon or Sprint.

HP's Snowjob: The company that brought you the $70 ink cartridge supports an end to flat rate Internet service to "save" you money.

HP’s Joe Weinman argues consumers are behind the drive to abandon flat rate, “all you can eat” broadband pricing.

Weinman, whose company sells products and services to some of America’s largest broadband providers, has taken up their position that flat-rate Internet service is bad for you, claiming many are paying too much for Internet service they use too little.

In an essay posted on GigaOM, Weinman brings back the all-y0u-can-eat buffet metaphor:

For the record, I like unlimited Internet access just as much as anyone else. However, such plans appear to be on their way out, and here’s why. As I’ve explored in ”The Market for Melons” (PDF), pay-per-use is not an evil plot by greedy robber barons, but a natural outcome of independent, rational consumer choice. Consider a town with an all-you-can-eat (flat rate) buffet and an a la carte (pay-per-use) restaurant. Smart shoppers on diets will save money by patronizing the a la carte restaurant, whereas heavy eaters will save money by visiting the buffet. As patrons switch, the average consumption of the buffet will increase, driving price increases for the luncheon special, causing even more users to switch to pay-per-use.

Bottom line: it is not the proprietors driving this dynamic, but the customers themselves acting out of pure, rational self-interest—light users, by deciding not to subsidize the heavy ones, foster the vitality of the pay-per-use model.

Unfortunately for Weinman, most American broadband customers don’t believe a word of this, and even he was forced to admit as much when he noted consumers “often prefer to overpay for flat-rate rather than save money but risk bill shock.”

Karl Bode at Broadband Reports wasn’t suckered for a moment either, noting:

[…]Cable industry lobbyists would like the public to believe that such a shift isn’t about making more money, it’s about helping the poor. Not only is the metered billing push absolutely about making money, it’s about artificially constricting the pipe to protect uncompetitive carriers and TV revenues from Internet video. But instead, there’s a very concerted effort afoot to portray this shift as necessary, inevitable, and even altruistic.

Most consumers prefer the simplicity of flat rate pricing, and understand that ISPs are perfectly profitable under the flat-rate pricing model. They also understand that this is a pipe dream forged by never-satisfied investors, and once implemented ends with ever soaring per gig fees and ever shrinking usage caps.

Weinman’s essay completely ignores the reality his preferred pricing model already delivers to those who live under it in Canada.  Canadian broadband rankings continue to decline as customers there pay higher prices for a lower level of service, with usage caps that actually decline when new competitive threats from online video emerge.

Just what the doctor ordered: HP's Rx for American Broadband

We had to take time out to respond directly to Weinman and his cheerleading friends (see the comments section), some who wrote comments below the piece and couldn’t be bothered to disclose they owe their day jobs to industry-backed dollar-a-holler groups that are committed to delivering on behalf of their provider benefactors:

When Big Telecom comes ringing with promises of savings from metered or capped broadband, hang up immediately.

These plans save almost nobody money and expose dramatic overlimit fees to consumers, creating the kind of bill shock wireless phone users endure.

The OPEC-like Internet price-fixing on offer from big players delivers broadband rationing and sky high prices, while retarding Internet innovations that providers don’t own or control.

Consumers are forced to double check their usage and think twice about everything they do online out of fear of being exposed to huge overlimit fees up to $10 a gigabyte for exceeding an arbitrary limit ranging from 5-250GB.

Americans already pay too much for Internet service and now the providers want more of your money. The rest of the world is moving AWAY from the pricing schemes Weinman would have us embrace. It’s such a serious issue in the South Pacific, the governments of Australia and New Zealand are working to address the problem themselves.

Providers are already earning BILLIONS in profits every quarter from their lucrative broadband businesses. Now the wallet biters are back for more, with the convenient side benefit that limiting consumption is a great way to prevent Internet-delivered TV from causing cord-cutting of cable TV packages.

As far as consumers are concerned, and Weinman admits as much, people are happy with today’s unlimited price models. When Big Telecom complains people are overpaying for broadband, wouldn’t their shareholders be telling them to shut up and take the money? There is more to this story.

Weinman defends the extortion proposition Big Telecom would visit on us: either give us limited use pricing or we’ll raise all of your prices.

But as consumers have already figured out, these providers never reduce prices for anyone. When was the last time your cable bill went down unless you dropped services?

Don’t be a sucker to Big Telecom’s “broadband shortage” or pricing myths. Broadband is not comparable to water, gas, or electric. The closest comparison (and the one they always leave out) is to telephone service, and as we’ve seen, that business is increasingly moving TOWARDS flat race, unlimited pricing.

Want to know what metered pricing does to the wallets of consumers? Just ask Time Warner Cable customers in Rochester, Greensboro, San Antonio, and Austin what they thought about the cable company’s “innovative” pricing experiment that tripled the price for the same level of broadband customers used to get for $50 a month. After the torches and pitchforks were raised over $150 a month broadband service, Time Warner backed down.

Either with or without metered pricing, the cable company raised its prices three times last year alone.

The industry’s meme that “usage-based pricing” in inevitable is only true if consumers allow it to happen.  The parade of Internet Overcharging advocates all share one thing in common — they earn a living from the providers that dream about these pricing schemes.  Always follow the money.  As we’ve exposed repeatedly, the vast majority of defenders of these kinds of pricing schemes are not consumers.  They are:

• The providers themselves;
• Wall Street banks, investors, and the business media catering to them;
• Non-profit groups receiving substantial contributions from providers;
• Industry-funded “think tanks” and research that can carry the industry’s public policy agenda, hoping the media that quotes them are too lazy to follow the money;
• Equipment and service vendors, unions, and other groups who depend on the business or jobs they get from providers.