Mehlman

A telecom industry front group acknowledged today American broadband in the last decade has not won any awards for speed or price, but if you just give the industry ten more years of deregulation, there will be more competition than ever to change that.

For the Internet Innovation Alliance’s Bruce Mehlman, the cable and phone companies have done a fine job bringing broadband to Americans, especially considering the industry is only ten years old.  If you leave things the way they are today, the next decade will bring even more competition from phone and cable companies, he promises.

But consumer groups wonder exactly how a duopoly will ever deliver world class service in the next ten years when it has spent the last ten hiking prices on slow speed broadband and now wants to limit or throttle usage.

This afternoon, National Public Radio’s All Things Considered tried to referee the broadband debate, pondering whether America is a world leader in broadband or has just fallen behind Estonia.  Reporter Joel Rose was perplexed to find two widely diverging attitudes about broadband, each with their set of numbers to prove their case.

On one side, consumers and public interest groups like Consumers Union and Free Press who believe deregulation and industry consolidation has created a stagnant broadband duopoly that only innovates how it can get away with charging even higher prices.

On the other, the phone and cable companies, the groups they finance, and their friends on Capitol Hill who believe there isn’t a broadband problem in the United States to begin with and government oversight would ruin a good thing.

Compared with other nations, the United States has continued to see its standing fall in broadband rankings measuring speed, price, adoption rates, and quality.  When East European countries and former Soviet Republics now routinely deliver better broadband service than America’s cable and telephone companies, that story writes itself. Embarrassed industry defenders prefer to confine discussion of America’s broadband success story inside the U.S. borders, discounting comparisons with other countries around the world.

For Rep. Joe “I Apologize to BP” Barton (R-Texas), it’s even more simple than that.  Even questioning the free market is downright silly.

“As everybody knows, if it’s not broke, don’t fix it,” Barton said at a March congressional hearing to discuss broadband matters. “And y’all are trying to fix something that in most cases isn’t broke. Ninety-five percent of America has broadband.”

Industry-financed astroturf and sock puppet groups readily agree, and dismiss industry critics.

Bruce Mehlman, co-chair of the industry-supported Internet Innovation Alliance, which opposes more regulation, acknowledges that the story of broadband in the U.S. is a classic glass-half-full, glass-half-empty predicament. Still, he says he thinks broadband adoption in the U.S. is going pretty well considering broadband has only been available for 10 years.

“For the optimist, you’d say within a decade we’ve seen greater broadband deployment than you saw for cell phones, than for cable TV, than for personal computers,” Mehlman says. “It’s one of the great technology success stories in history.”

Mehlman says Americans don’t need more government intervention to make broadband faster and cheaper. “We haven’t yet and that’s in the first decade,” he says. “In the second decade, the marketplace is only going to be that much more competitive.”

Kelsey

The problems go further than that, however.

Derek Turner, research director for the public interest group Free Press, told NPR broadband rankings tell an important story. “For the providers to try to say that there’s no problem, it’s merely just a smoke screen,” he says.

Providers would prefer to measure their performance against each other instead of comparing themselves with foreign providers now routinely providing better, faster, and cheaper service than what American consumers can find.  They have to, if only because of those pesky international rankings illustrating a wired United States in decline.

Joel Kelsey at Consumers Union tells NPR there is an even bigger question here — what role broadband plays in our lives.

Because 96 percent of Americans can only get broadband from a duopoly — the phone or cable company, the only people truly singing the praises of today’s broadband marketplace are the providers themselves and their shareholders.  Consumers see a bigger problem — high prices, and particularly for rural consumers, slow speeds.

“If you talk to [the] industry,” Kelsey says, “they think of broadband as a private commercial service akin to pay TV or cable TV.”

On the other hand, Kelsey says, “There’s a lot of folks who think it is an essential input into this nation’s economy — an essential infrastructure question.”

National Public Radio reporter Joel Rose dived into the battle over broadband numbers between consumer groups and industry representatives. Is America’s broadband glass half-full or half-empty? (June 28, 2010) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Shapiro

Yesterday, Stop the Cap! reviewed a report from Robert J. Shapiro and Kevin Hassett suggesting “heavy users” should pay 80 percent of the costs to upgrade and expand broadband service to help lower prices for Internet access among America’s poor.  But what might have read to some as a scholarly assessment of challenges confronting American broadband is, in reality, propaganda produced by Sonecon, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm hired by AT&T to sell their corporate agenda to the American public, interest groups, and Congress.

Beltway Economics – Buying Credentialed “Experts” to Back Discredited Policies

The dirty little secret of Washington power politics is that money buys attention, access, and all too often votes.  What began as a cottage industry to help facilitate communications between private business and political Washington has grown into a monstrosity that now largely controls the agenda, giving the upper hand to those who can outspend their rivals.  Since all too often those rivals are consumers who don’t bring money to play the game, they don’t even get a seat at the table.

Few people start a career thinking they’ll ultimately wind up prostituting their good name and resume to the highest bidder.  For many inside the beltway, what may have begun as a well-intentioned career in public service too often ends working for one of countless “public strategy firms” that help special interests get their way. Their impact on the debate is pervasive, especially when Congressional allies are on board: using suggested witnesses at Congressional hearings that lock out true consumer groups, reading lobbyist-provided talking points during floor debates, quoting from industry-sponsored reports sold as “independent research,” and gratefully accepting any accompanying campaign contribution checks along the way.

Most D.C. lobbying firms rely on recognized names who maintain a high profile in Washington power circles even years after leaving the public sector.  When selling an agenda, it helps if the person doing the sales pitch already knows the person being sold.  That’s why so many ex-Congressmen, deciding they’ve gotten used to living in Washington and want to stay, find new careers and a much bigger paycheck working as lobbyists.  But elected office isn’t a requirement.  Even those appointed to positions in the public sector can turn those lean government pay years into an income bonanza once that administration leaves office.

Robert J. Shapiro has come a long way from his early days in progressive politics found him in positions at several liberally-minded groups like the Progressive Policy Institute and the Progressive Foundation.  He advised several Democratic presidential candidates, including Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.  Bill Clinton appointed Shapiro the U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs during his second term in office.

Unfortunately, although that title looks great on a business card and future resume, the pay is downright lousy.  Besides, his temp job would end with the Clinton Administration’s departure.

Shapiro combined his credentials with years of networking into Sonecon, LLC — a D.C. lobbying firm that pays dividends from its grateful clients, including AT&T.  Sonecon describes itself as “an economic advisory firm that provides in-depth analyses and unique insights into changing economic conditions in the United States and around the world and the impact of government policies on those conditions….”

Sonecon Knows Its Place

But just a little digging reveals Sonecon is really just another cog in the wheel of corporate campaign strategy and messaging.  Among the services promised to its clients (underlined emphasis ours):

• [Sonecon] works extensively with a network of affiliated firms (read that other lobbyists, astroturf groups, and think tanks) to help design and execute message campaigns;
• Sonecon plays an influential role in shaping public policy debates. We identify economic risks and opportunities created by recently proposed or enacted laws and regulations. By outlining the risks and opportunities associated with these changes, Sonecon enables business and government decision makers to react in a timely and appropriate way.  One recent example: Our reports on proposed new FCC regulations effecting broadband providers focused on broadband access issues for lower income households.
• As part of our services, Sonecon principals and advisers take part in strategic public relations campaigns designed to promote the firm’s work in the media, Congress and Executive Branch.  Well-informed, credentialed, and highly credible spokespersons, our team members are available for special appearances as well as ongoing communication campaigns.

Sonecon’s involvement in this particular ongoing communications campaign was made considerably easier by CNET’s sloppy editorial policy which effectively handed free media to AT&T without adequate disclosure of Shapiro’s agenda.  A simple Google search would have given CNET ample evidence that Shapiro and his firm were performing work on behalf of its clients — the telecommunications industry, especially AT&T.  This is not CNET’s first lapse.  On June 3rd, they provided column space for Robert Hahn to bash the FCC for involving itself in data plan pricing.  Only they never disclosed the fact Hahn is associated with the Technology Policy Institute (TPI), a phone and cable industry-backed think tank.  Even Comcast managed to disclose that association in their company blog.

In March, Shapiro appeared on an industry-backed panel to oppose broadband reform (from left, Robert Crandall-Brookings Institution, Walter McCormick-USTelecom, Lee Rainie-Pew Internet and America Life Project, Robert Shapiro-Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy, and Joseph Waz, Comcast)

The unfortunate part of this story is that Sonecon and Shapiro have also infested the current debate over the National Broadband Plan.  This past March, Shapiro joined forces with the aforementioned TPI and its benefactors AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and the cable lobbying group NCTA to appear at a half-day “event” at the National Press Club to whine about broadband reform’s impact on industry investment and broadband expansion.  To underscore the economic investment threat, the sponsors were only willing to provide a continental breakfast for participants.  Leave us deregulated or else American broadband will resemble this stale pastry and ersatz “orange juice”-flavored beverage.

Such events happen easily in Washington with a swipe of a corporate credit card.  If consumers still had money, they could hire firms like Sonecon to represent their interests in these beltway policy debates.  But then hard-hit Americans don’t even have credit cards to spare these days, thanks to earlier lobbying efforts that allowed banks to use the economy as their personal casino.  Shapiro played his part in this too, writing a January 2008 report, “American Jobs and the Impact of Private Equity Transactions” that advocated for big Wall Street private equity leveraged buyouts, playing down the typical wholesale job losses that followed:

The data strongly suggest that private equity operations have solid, positive effects on U.S. employment, a finding consistent with the general role that private equity transactions play in the American economy. Private equity funds identify inefficient companies or subsidiaries, leverage those companies’ assets to borrow much of the financing to purchase them outright or to purchase a controlling interest, reorganize their operations and management, and run the enterprises as privately-owned entities.

Friends Until the End… Of the Contract

True to word, Shapiro did work extensively with a network of affiliated firms.  Many of the sources in his report are other groups also working for the industry or dependent on it.

The challenge here is that industry and government experts now expect that broadband bandwidth demand will continue to rise rapidly with the fast-expanding use of video and audio applications, and that consequently broadband providers face an extended period of significantly higher investments to accommodate this growing bandwidth demand.

[…]Another estimate cited by David McClure, the head of the U.S. Internet Industry Association, and John Ernhardt, Senior Manager of Policy Communications for Cisco Systems, projects that the long-term investments required to keep up with rising bandwidth demand could cost providers an additional $300 billion over 20 years, on top of their trend level investments.

Recently, the FCC broadband task force suggested that the additional investment requirements, including wiring every household with fiber, may well reach $350 billion.

The U.S. Internet Industry Association is a trade association for service providers like AT&T and Verizon.  A Verizon executive serves on its board.  Its mission includes working “to enhance your existing legislative and regulatory resources, giving your company a stronger voice over a wider range of issues — and at a reduced cost.”

Cisco Systems, principal advocate of the theory of the Internet traffic tsunami, makes its living selling equipment to manage the “exaflood” to the same industry that it pals around with in public policy debates.

Kevin Hassett co-authored the Sonecon report

And where does Shapiro’s estimated price tag of $350 billion come from?  His proclaimed source, the FCC broadband task force, is only half the story.  In fact, this cost estimate came from service providers, equipment manufacturers, and trade associations/lobbyists, among others¹.  That part didn’t make it into Shapiro’s report  — maybe he ran out of room.

Therein lies the basic problem with sock puppet research.  The credibility of any industry-funded study is questionable before the first copy even gets published.  Common sense dictates that a firm’s longevity is directly tied to its performance for clients.  Producing research that questions the strategy a company hires you to push is a one-way ticket to bankruptcy.  It doesn’t matter what credentials one brings to the table, money always speaks louder, especially in Washington.

Shapiro’s co-author, Kevin Hassett, is a political polar opposite, having served as an economic adviser to John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign and Director of Economic Studies at the very-business-friendly American Enterprise Institute.  The potential friction between the two was eased by the ultimate incentive: big piles of bipartisan telecom cash.

In the end, Sonecon has done its client’s bidding — fixing facts to subjectively argue that unlimited, flat-rate broadband has to go. Their evidence is as flimsy as can be — assumptions that overcharging some people for Internet service will guarantee upgrades and cheaper pricing for others.

If you believe that, you’ll also believe Shapiro and Hassett wrote this report for free.

¹Federal Communications Commission. FCC Task Force on the National Broadband Plan Presentation to the FCC: September Commission Meeting (Slide 45)

Dick Cheney's ghost is haunting the halls at the FCC these days as the agency conducts secret, closed-door meetings with just four companies to achieve "common ground" on broadband regulation. Consumers are not invited to attend.

In 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney convened the first meeting of the always-off-the-record National Energy Policy Development Group.  Secretly inviting executives of the nation’s largest oil companies and lobbyists for natural gas and mining, Cheney hoped to find “common ground” on energy issues that he could translate into legislation on Capitol Hill.  The final report kept the names of the self-interested corporate executives off the member roster, and predictably called for legislative actions that would directly benefit those in attendance.

In June 2010, a series of meetings with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s chief of staff and executives from AT&T, Verizon, Google and Skype got underway to find “common ground” on the issues of broadband regulation and Net Neutrality.  With irony, the same FCC that promised it would be “the most open and transparent ever” has barred the press and the public from participation.  No consumers were invited.  No minutes from the meetings will be disclosed.  In short, these are “closed-door” meetings.

Even more surprising, apparently the FCC forgot to invite Comcast, the cable conglomerate most directly responsible for the agency having its authority cut from beneath it in the first place.

When the Washington Post asked Eddie Lazarus, Genachowski’s chief of staff, what was on the agenda, only vague notions about “seizing the opportunity” to find common agreement on issues like Net Neutrality were disclosed.  Lazarus added the big four were also there to give input on Congress’ interest in revising the Communications Act.

That’s great news for thousands of Washington’s lobbyists who helped fashion the disastrous 1996 Communications Act that represented Christmas morning for corporate interests — more deregulation in the broadcast business which lead to massive consolidation, giveaways to the cable and telephone industry, and more handouts to wireless companies.

What was supposed to be a law to govern the public interest of the airwaves and telecommunications turned into a lobbyist feeding frenzy.  Consumers couldn’t afford the price of admission. Reopening the Communications Act means telecom companies from coast to coast can get busy working on their Christmas wish lists for the 500+ Secret Santas that live and work in the legislative branch of government these days, especially on the Republican side of the aisle.

Of course, the real outrage here is the FCC’s hope that the four companies can reach some agreement on contentious broadband issues and then the agency can do away with the entire matter of broadband regulatory reform.  Why fight the battle if you can compromise the issue away?  No matter what the four agree on, there are still many outstanding issues relating to consumer protection which cannot be negotiated by four corporate entities.

Those on both sides of the broadband regulatory issue are appalled at the secrecy.  Brett Glass, who opposes Net Neutrality and runs a WISP in Wyoming asked, “What happened to Chairman Genachowski’s promises of “the most open and transparent FCC ever?”

Indeed.

Lazarus tried his best to paper over the serious implications of holding secretive meetings in a blog post:

Senior Commission staff are making themselves available to meet with all interested parties on these issues. To the extent stakeholders discuss proposals with Commission staff regarding other approaches outside of the open proceedings at the Commission, the agency’s ex parte disclosure requirements are not applicable. But to promote transparency and keep the public informed, we will post notices of these meetings here at blog.broadband.gov. As always, our door is open to all ideas and all stakeholders.

In part, here was our response to Mr. Lazarus:

There is no transparency or openness in closed-door meetings that bar the public from participation. It’s just more of the same inside-the-beltway deal-making that will undercut consumers. Believe it or not, there is more at stake here than whatever issues Verizon, AT&T, Google, and eBay have to discuss.

And what if the four agreed on anything (improbable)? Does that mean the rest of us are expected to go along to get along?

The FCC’s door is -not- open to all ideas and stakeholders when the chairman’s chief of staff only invites four voices to his table.

There is nothing open and transparent about secret meetings peppered with excuses about why disclosure rules do not apply.

[Update 10:30am ET Wednesday — The DailyFinance quotes a government source: “We fu*ked up,” a government source familiar with the meetings told DailyFinance. “We deserve the bad press. It was a process foul at a minimum.”]

AT&T: 'If you don't do what we say, we're taking U-verse away!'

AT&T is threatening to pick up its toys and go home if the Federal Communications Commission tries to bring back its oversight powers over broadband.

CEO Randall Stephenson threw a major hissyfit in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, annoyed the company doesn’t have free rein to do whatever it wants.

“I’m a 3-2 vote away from the next guy coming in and [trying to regulate us], [and] I take it away,” Stephenson said, referring to it’s U-verse IPTV service.

AT&T has threatened to cut spending on U-verse deployment if AT&T faces regulations like Net Neutrality in its broadband business.

“If this Title 2 regulation looks imminent, we have to re-evaluate whether we put shovels in the ground,” Stephenson said, claiming the company planned to spend a “couple billion” dollars a year on the service… until now.

But AT&T has already cut spending on U-verse, slashing $2 billion in U-verse investments in 2009 alone — news trumpeted to shareholders.  Additionally, AT&T has laid off thousands of employees.  In short, the threats the company made this week have already come to pass… more than a year ago.

Many analysts claim AT&T is bluffing.  Like most landline providers, AT&T is losing traditional phone customers who are disconnecting their wired phone lines.  Its wireless division has been pummeled for inadequate 3G coverage, poor customer service, and lousy reception in many areas.  AT&T can’t afford -not- to upgrade their services if they wish to retain customers.

The cable television industry certainly hopes AT&T isn’t bluffing.  They are enjoying AT&T’s disconnect business as customers dump inadequate DSL service and overpriced phone lines for cable-provided alternatives.

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.