Music Freedom Or Holding Consumers Hostage? Letting ISPs Pick Winners And Losers Is A Problem

from the pushing-the-edges dept

With all of the current arguing over net neutrality lately, it's important to recognize that the people who actually supply your internet access have pretty much already figured out ways to get around anything the FCC is currently talking about. As we've discussed, Comcast (and others) recently realized that they can get the exact same solution (fast lanes and slow lanes, and getting big internet services to double pay for the bandwidth you already bought) by focusing on interconnection issues and purposely letting their ports get clogged. Separately, AT&T and Verizon are increasingly putting their focus on wireless over DSL/fiber anyway -- in part because they know that the original (now rejected by the courts) open internet rules and any new FCC rules don't apply to wireless networks.

AT&T has exploited this with its sponsored data efforts, in which service providers can pay AT&T so that their data doesn't apply towards the ridiculously low data caps they've placed on their mobile broadband offerings. T-Mobile has now done something similar, though it's not quite as nefarious. It's offering a program called Music Freedom, in which certain music streaming services (which can certainly eat up some bandwidth) don't count against the data cap. Now, unlike AT&T's sponsored data program, at least T-Mobile isn't charging the music services to be on the list -- but it is still a limited list of participants. T-Mobile is letting its users "vote" on other services to be exempted from the data cap limits.

Here's the nefarious bit about all of this: this is all promoted and spun as being for the consumer's benefit. And, in a way, it is. You get to listen to music streaming on your phone without any concern about it eating up your data cap. Consumers win! Except... not really. Think through the details here: consumers are "winning" only because some pre-selected services are being granted an exemption from the ridiculously low caps set by the mobile operators themselves. Now you see the problem? It's the mobile operator "saving" the consumer from the artificial limits the mobile operators themselves set up. And then the mobile operators themselves get to "pick" the winning services (T-Mobile) or see who will pay the most to be the winner (AT&T).

Saving a child from a burning building makes you a hero. Setting fire to the building to then save the child? Not so much.

And that's where the big problem lies. When the company that provides you access to the internet has the ability to pick the winners and losers for service providers, a key part of what makes the internet so powerful and useful... goes away. That they're spinning this as being for the consumer is particularly problematic. Down in Chile, they seem to recognize this. Just a few days ago, we wrote about how Chile has found that this kind of thing violates its net neutrality rules by giving preferential treatment. In that case, the issue may seem even trickier, because it banned so-called "zero-rated" social media apps. In many places where mobile data is paid for on a rate basis, Facebook (especially) and others have been able to better penetrate those markets by paying the local mobile operators for their users' access to those apps. On the one hand that seems great, as it offers up these services to users for free when otherwise they'd have to pay. But it also locks in the big companies with the money to pay.

Either way, what the T-Mobile program (especially) shows is that it is clearly artificially setting up very low data caps for no good reason. By offering Music Freedom, it is flat out admitting that the low data caps are not necessary because of any traffic issues, because it can easily handle much more data (for free, even). T-Mobile could have just said any music streaming service is automatically included -- but instead it chose to pick winners and losers -- meaning that consumers (and less popular or new music services) lose. That's a big problem. There are plenty of reasons why various internet services may succeed or fail, but adding in the end user's internet access provider/mobile operator to the equation just puts up another (very large) hurdle.

Filed Under: access, data caps, isps, music, music freedom, net neutrality, winners and losers
Companies: at&t, t-mobile

New Net Neutrality Bill Introduced, Has No Chance Of Passing

from the good-luck-with-that dept

We've discussed for years how net neutrality debates all went sideways the second it became a "partisan" issue. In the early days of the debate, it was neither a Democratic or Republican issue, and there were some actually substantive conversations about the issue and what it meant, and what the consequences were. However, somewhere in the mid-2000s, suddenly it became Democrats "for" net neutrality and Republicans "against." It became a silly fight over "regulating the internet" and all reasoned discussion seemed to go out the window entirely. That's why net neutrality is basically a dead issue from the Congressional side of things. Congress simply isn't going to act because it's a partisan bloodbath, with each side screaming at the other with half-truths and misrepresentations about what's at stake. On the Republican side, you have claims about "regulating the internet" and plans to block the FCC from doing its job. On the flip side, we've now got the Democratic proposal coming out to pass legislation that will ban fast lanes online.

While the good intent may be there, the politics aren't. The bill isn't going anywhere. Introduced by Rep. Doris Matsui and powerful perennial underachiever Senator Patrick Leahy, it will be seen as a Democratic bill, with no chance of passing the House in any meaningful way. Oh, and if this sounds familiar, we were here a few months ago too. It's a nice nod to the important issue, but as a bill it's just an acknowledgement of how powerless Congress is to actually do anything on this issue when the issue is still (ridiculously) considered a partisan issue, rather than one about how the future of the internet will play out.

Filed Under: congress, doris matsui, fast lane, net neutrality, open internet, patrick leahy

Verizon Lobbyists: That Deaf, Dumb And Blind Kid Sure Could Use An Internet Fast Lane

from the to-paraphrase-the-who dept

As we've discussed, big broadband companies love to pretend that their anti-competitive efforts will somehow benefit less powerful groups. It's a cynical ploy that goes back to the famous statement about GM that "what's good for GM is good for the country." It is even more cynically done here, since it often involves marginalized groups, allowing the big companies to tug on heart strings of politicians, while actually making life worse for those marginalized groups. The latest in this arena, according to Mother Jones, is that Verizon lobbyists are swarming Capitol Hill telling folks in Congress that it needs to be able to offer "fast lanes" on the internet to help deaf, blind and disabled internet users. Of course, there's a big problem with this -- namely, the groups that represent those folks appear to disagree.

Three Hill sources tell Mother Jones that Verizon lobbyists have cited the needs of blind, deaf, and disabled people to try to convince congressional staffers and their bosses to get on board with the fast lane idea. But groups representing disabled Americans, including the National Association of the Deaf, the National Federation of the Blind, and the American Association of People with Disabilities are not advocating for this plan. Mark Perriello, the president and CEO of the AAPD, says that this is the "first time" he has heard "these specific talking points."

The basic argument is that if true net neutrality is allowed, then somehow, magically, Verizon and others won't be able to offer priority services that are more "necessary" for these groups. Except, of course, that's not even close to true. There are plenty of great and useful online services for these different groups, most of which are built by organizations that are not Verizon and which actually rely on the fact that they don't have to double pay the big broadband providers to make sure their offerings work properly.

Even more to the point, though, this lobbying effort makes it pretty clear that, contrary to FCC boss Tom Wheeler's own claims, Verizon (and AT&T and Comcast) recognize that the current FCC proposal will, in fact, enable "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" on the internet. It's even more obvious from the fact that AT&T has flat out come out in favor of the current proposal.

Either way, lobbyists playing cynical games to rope in groups that don't want their help in support of breaking net neutrality just shows how incredibly desperate the big broadband players are getting in trying to block any real shot at net neutrality.

Filed Under: blind, broadband, cynicism, deaf, disabled, fast lane, lobbyists, net neutrality
Companies: verizon

Tom Wheeler: 'I'm Not A Dingo.' John Oliver: 'Prove It!'

from the indeed dept

The John Oliver on net neutrality saga lives on. Following John Oliver's segment on net neutrality, in which he said we should all really be calling it preventing cable company fuckery, the FCC's servers melted down, and suddenly Oliver himself was a story. While the FCC had offered some boring acknowledgement of Oliver's piece, Wheeler was finally caught on the record having to respond to the piece, and he noted something about how it was satire, but also, "I would like to state, for the record, I am not a dingo."

And, of course, how could Oliver resist responding to that challenge. As Oliver jokingly notes, he had only really said that hiring a former cable industry lobbyist to run the FCC was merely like hiring a dingo to babysit your kids. He'd never actually said he was a dingo -- but, of course, now that Wheeler is denying it, Oliver is asking for proof that Wheeler is, in fact, not a dingo.

Filed Under: dingo, fcc, john oliver, net neutrality, satire, tom wheeler

Chile Bans Free Delivery Of Social Media Services To Uphold Net Neutrality

from the tricky-stuff dept

Net neutrality is a hot topic on both sides of the Atlantic, but it's not only in those regions that governments are trying to formulate policies that will keep the Internet fair and open for innovation. One country at the forefront of this field is Chile, which passed its net neutrality law in 2010. Here's how how Global Voices summarized the legislation:

The reform implies, among other things, that Internet Service Providers will not be able to arbitrarily block, interfere, discriminate, hinder or restrict content, applications or legal services that users perform on their networks.

That's a pretty standard framing for net neutrality, with a prohibition on discrimination -- and that includes positive discrimination. As GigaOM reports, Chile has now taken action against this kind of preferential treatment online:

The Chilean telecommunications regulator Subtel has banned mobile operators from offering so-called zero-rated social media apps -- services like Twitter and Facebook that, through deals with the carriers, can be used without having to pay for mobile data. Subtel says such practices are illegal under Chilean net neutrality law.

That might seem perverse, since it means that Chilean mobile users must now pay to access those services, but it is nonetheless exactly what governments that have mandated net neutrality need to do. That's because providing these services for free makes it much harder for newcomers -- specifically new services from local startups -- to compete with established ones that are provided free. Indeed, it's striking how Facebook, for example, has kept its head down during the net neutrality debates -- doubtless conscious that it has benefitted hugely from these schemes that run counter to net neutrality principles. As Vox wrote recently:

One factor in Facebook's growing global popularlity is Facebook Zero. Under this program, Facebook pays the data charges for users who log into a stripped down version of Facebook from their mobile phones. The program has made Facebook accessible to millions of users who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it.

That's clearly anti-competitive. But what about this from 2012?

Orange has struck a deal with Wikipedia to make its digital encyclopaedia available free of data charges to millions of mobile phone users across the Middle East and Africa.

Although that breaks net neutrality in the same way as Facebook Zero, Wikipedia sees it as something that should be encouraged:

Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organisation that runs Wikipedia, said: "Wikipedia is an important service, a public good, and so we want people to be able to access it for free, regardless of what device they're using. This partnership with Orange will enable millions of people to read Wikipedia who previously couldn't."

That's certainly true, so perhaps there should be an exception to net neutrality for non-profits. But that would still produce the same tilting of the playing field in favor of one supplier, making it hard for a new rival to Wikipedia, say, to compete. Tricky stuff this net neutrality....

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: chile, discrimination, mobile, net neutrality, preferential treatment, zero fee, zero rated
Companies: facebook

FCC Begins Investigating Comcast And Verizon Making Netflix Pay To Avoid Congestion

from the but-still-won't-call-it-net-neutrality dept

Throughout the most recent version of the net neutrality fight, Tom Wheeler and the FCC has worked hard to keep interconnection issues a separate debate, even though interconnection is likely where the real fight has moved. In short, if you haven't been following this closely, net neutrality has historically been about discrimination on the last mile -- from your broadband access provider to your home -- but over the past couple of years, the big broadband companies (mainly Comcast) have realized they can get the same basic result (getting big internet companies like Netflix to double pay for your bandwidth) by clogging up the transit, and getting Netflix to pay up to interconnect directly. However, in the minds of most people, it's the same thing. Even while the congestion is happening on the network, the end result for everyone is effectively the same: Netflix has to pay to get a quality stream to you, your connection sucks if they don't pay, and Comcast collects all the money. So, when John Oliver did his piece on net neutrality, he actually illustrated it with the interconnection battle. And that's because it's really the same thing.

Well, it's really the same thing to just about everyone... except the FCC. The FCC's request for comments explicitly tries to avoid delving into the interconnection fights, but thanks to things like John Oliver's coverage, many of the comments the FCC has been receiving have been about those issues anyway. Apparently realizing that he can't avoid the issue, FCC boss Tom Wheeler has announced that he's now "gathering information" on these interconnection fights and has specifically asked Comcast, Verizon and Netflix to hand over the details of their arrangement. Wheeler even quotes one of the comments that the FCC has received during the NPRM comments that talks about the interconnection battle, and notes that there are many more like that.

In reading the emails I receive, I thought this one from George pretty well sums up public concern:

Netflix versus Verizon: Is Verizon abusing Net Neutrality and causing Netflix picture quality to be degraded by “throttling” transmission speeds? Who is at fault here? The consumer is the one suffering! What can you do?

We don’t know the answers and we are not suggesting that any company is at fault. But George has gone to the heart of the matter: what is going on and what can the FCC do on behalf of consumers? Consumers pay their ISP and they pay content providers like Hulu, Netflix or Amazon. Then when they don’t get good service they wonder what is going on. I have experienced these problems myself and know how exasperating it can be.

Consumers must get what they pay for. As the consumer’s representative we need to know what is going on. I have therefore directed the Commission staff to obtain the information we need to understand precisely what is happening in order to understand whether consumers are being harmed. Recently, at my direction, Commission staff has begun requesting information from ISPs and content providers. We have received the agreements between Comcast and Netflix and Verizon and Netflix. We are currently in the process of asking for others.

To be clear, what we are doing right now is collecting information, not regulating. We are looking under the hood. Consumers want transparency. They want answers. And so do I.

That sounds good, but we'll see what actually comes of it. The fact that Wheeler has tried hard to separate interconnection from net neutrality hasn't been particularly encouraging. The personable "I've experienced these problems myself" is nice, but it means little if the FCC doesn't actually realize what's going on here. Also, the quote at the end about transparency also sounds good, but we'll have to see if the FCC actually lives up to it and shares the details or keeps the whole process secret.

Filed Under: congestion, deals, fcc, interconnection, net neutrality, tom wheeler
Companies: comcast, netflix, verizon

Forget The FCC: Should We Be Looking To The FTC To Save An Open Internet?

from the that-could-be-something dept

Nearly all of the focus on the big net neutrality fight of the summer has been on the FCC. This makes sense, since the FCC regulates internet and phone access providers, and that's where this battle is. The small bits of focus that go beyond the FCC seem to move only over to Congress, and the question of whether or not it would push some sort of legislation that would mandate the FCC do something different. But, the problem is that Congress simply won't do anything on this (the issue is too partisan and too toxic) and the FCC appears to be similarly constrained, mainly by a chronic lack of backbone, combined with the ever present revolving door between the FCC and the telco/cable companies they "regulate" (a problem we've been reporting on for years). The FCC could do some things, but just doesn't seem motivated to (yet).

However, it seems that another option that gets no attention at all might be having the FTC, rather than the FCC, rescue the open internet and put the big broadband players in their space. The Federal Trade Commission has a fairly broad mandate to protect consumers, and while there are times that I worry its crusading can go a little far, for the most part, it really does seem to do a good job figuring out ways to step in where other parts of the government are failing to protect the public and innovation. While Congress and the USPTO are still failing to do anything useful about patent trolls, the FTC has been looking for ways to combat trolls for a few years. The FTC has also gone to bat for innovative companies stymied by local regulations, including Tesla and Uber. Over at the Disruptive Competition blog, Glenn Manishin has a great post about the FTC's "competition advocacy" and how important it is in a variety of markets.

It seems like the FTC can -- and perhaps should -- get involved in the net neutrality fight. In fact, in many ways, it may be a much better fit, in part because it could pretty easily justify getting involved at a few key juncture points. First, it could easily jump in on the current interconnection disputes, which appear to be where the real fight is happening these days (and it's an area which the Tom Wheeler FCC is insisting is "separate" from the net neutrality fight, even though it's really not). The interconnection fights have been a way for the big broadband providers to get everything they want without "technically" violating the concept of net neutrality on the last mile. The link above describes this if you haven't paid close attention to the differences between the fight over discrimination on the last mile and with interconnection.

But the key issue with the interconnection fights, as we were just explaining, is that the the broadband players are simply failing to deliver to end users what they sold them -- and that's a classic example of the situations where the FTC normally steps in. Customers of broadband providers are paying them to deliver the content they request over the internet, and the broadband providers are purposely not delivering that content at a quality level they have promised to provide. It seems like a situation where the FTC might easily step in and point out that broadband providers made commitments to customers that they have failed to deliver.

A second area where the FTC could have an impact is in the arena of competition advocacy to get around local barriers to competition. As we've discussed at length over the years, the big broadband players have worked incredibly hard to ban competition at the local level, often in egregiously offensive ways, including (but not limited to) total bans on municipal broadband in 20 different states -- even as many (though, certainly not all) municipal broadband projects have shown tremendous success, and with that success comes better broadband.

While Tom Wheeler has indicated that the FCC may step in to preempt state laws that block competition, the FTC can start taking action on that as well, putting pressure on states and cities, as it's done with things like Uber and Tesla. Furthermore, it seems that if broadband providers like Verizon are going to make use of common carrier rules in order to get subsidized access to rights of way such as conduits and electrical poles (while trying to stay free of the exact same rules for the same services they run over those lines), the very least they can do is let others get access to the same opportunities.

At the heart of all of this is anticompetitive practices by the big broadband players, and that's exactly where the FTC is supposed to step in and do something. To be fair, the FTC has explored this issue in the past, and some in the FTC have suggested they should take a larger role in the process. And, in the meantime, there are clear pros and cons to an FTC approach rather than an FCC one (including the lack of a specific ability to outright ban discriminatory practices) -- but with a weak FCC and a nearly impotent Congress on this issue, it seems like getting the FTC ramped up and involved in this issue might actually lead to better long-term results.

Filed Under: antitrust, competition, fcc, ftc, interconnection, muni broadband, net neutrality, open internet, peering
Companies: at&t, comcast, verizon

Community Organizations Say They Never Actually Joined Bogus Anti-Net Neutrality Astrotufing Group

from the because-of-course-they-didn't dept

All the way back in 2008, we wrote about an increasingly common practice among slimy DC lobbyists to "sign up" clueless organizations to be used as astroturfing figureheads. For example, it seemed odd that corn farmers were suddenly interested in internet ad rates. The original article, by Declan McCullagh, included the money quote from an anonymous person involved in those kinds of astroturfing schemes:

"You go down the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers, and choose them.... You say, 'I can't use this one--I already used them last time...' We had their letterhead. We'd just write the letter. We'd fax it to them and tell them, 'You're in favor of this.'"

This seems to be standard practice for the big broadband companies. We highlighted how AT&T got "The Latino Coalition" to speak up in favor of their attempted (and eventually failed) merger with T-Mobile. Meanwhile, Comcast recently got the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce to come out in favor of Comcast buying Time Warner Cable. And, of course, the dirty secret in all of this is that the way this works is the big companies toss a bunch of money at these organizations to get them to "support" whatever positions the companies want them to support. For example, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce received $320,000 from Comcast.

We recently wrote about the latest round of astroturfing groups that the broadband players were supporting, and who were out arguing in force against net neutrality. Lee Fang, at Vice, who wrote the original report that was based on now has a followup, talking about how many of the organizations listed as "members" of the astroturf group "Broadband for America" claim they have no idea what that is and did not choose to sign up.

Bob Calvert, the host of TalkingWithHeroes.com, a radio program listed as a Broadband for American member, told us that he is not familiar with the net neutrality debate. "My program is a non-political program supporting our men and women who serve and who have served our country and their families," said Calvert, in response to an inquiry from VICE.

Another Broadband for America member, the Texas Organization of Rural & Community Hospitals, said it had joined only to support broadband access in rural and underserved areas, not on issues relating to net neutrality or the classification of broadband as a utility. "We will reexamine this endorsement and make a determination whether to continue supporting the coalition should we find that the current policies they are proposing would undermine the original goal of greater access for all Americans," said Dave Pearson, president of the group, which represents rural hospitals in Texas as the name suggests.

Some directly say they disagree with Broadband for America's position on net neutrality.

Don Hollister, the executive director of the Ohio League of Conservation Voters, said he was unaware of his organization being listed as a Broadband for America member. After our inquiry, Hollister wrote to us to share a message he sent to Broadband for America:

"The Ohio League of Conservation Voters does not endorse your position on broadband. This is not a policy area that we take positions on. Why are we listed as a Broadband for America member? I am unaware of Ohio LCV taking any position on broadband issues and I have been Executive Director since 2011. The Ohio LCV is not a member of Broadband for America. Remove us from your listing of members."

Other groups we contacted were simply confused. "I'm not aware of them and I pay all the bills. I've never heard of Broadband for America," replied Keith Jackson, an accountant with the Spread Eagle Tavern & Inn, a cozy bed and breakfast in Ohio that is listed as a Broadband for America member.

There's more in the original article. But it's pretty straightforward: many of the named members either had no idea or thought they were signing up for something very, very different. And yet now they are "supporting" policies they either don't know about or don't support. But this is how things are done in the cynical corners of Washington DC. You get support in any way necessary, no matter how ridiculous.

Filed Under: astroturfing, broadband, consumer groups, lobbying, net neutrality, politics
Companies: at&t, broadband for america, comcast, verizon

BitTorrent Shows You What The Internet Looks Like Without Net Neutrality; Suggests A Better Way

from the change-things-around dept

If you've been following the whole net neutrality fight for a while, the following graphic may be familiar to you -- showing what a potential "cable-ized" world the internet would become without strong protections for net neutrality: At some point, someone created a similar version, that was specific to AT&T: A little while ago, however, someone took the joke even further, and set up a website for a fake broadband provider, asking people to Join the Fastlane!, and it was pretty dead on in terms of what such a site might look like: I particularly like this bit: It's now come out that this campaign (along with some associated billboards) has been put together by BitTorrent Inc., not all that different than the company's billboard campaign against the NSA. Along with this, BitTorrent has put out a blog post explaining, in part, how we got here, but more importantly how we need to start thinking about a better way to handle internet traffic to avoid the kind of future described above.

The key issue: building a more decentralized internet:

Many smart researchers are already thinking about this problem. Broadly speaking, this re-imagined Internet is often called Content Centric Networking. The closest working example we have to a Content Centric Network today is BitTorrent. What if heavy bandwidth users, say, Netflix, for example, worked more like BitTorrent?

If they did, each stream — each piece of content — would have a unique address, and would be streamed peer-to-peer. That means that Netflix traffic would no longer be coming from one or two places that are easy to block. Instead, it would be coming from everywhere, all at once; from addresses that were not easily identified as Netflix addresses — from addresses all across the Internet.

To the ISP, they are simply zeroes and ones.

All equal.

There's obviously a lot more to this, but it's good to see more and more people realizing that one of the fundamental problems that got us here is the fact that so much of the internet has become centralized -- and, as such, can be easily targeted for discrimination. Making the internet much more decentralized is a big step in making it so that discrimination and breaking net neutrality aren't even on the table.

Filed Under: centralized, decentralized, discrimination, fast lane, innovation, net neutrality, open internet, spoof
Companies: bittorrent

Bogus Broadband Astroturf Organizations Always Have Names Pretending They Represent The Consumers They're Working To Screw Over

from the because-that's-how-it's-done dept

Astroturfing in the broadband space is big business. You may recall last summer when we uncovered evidence of significant astroturfing in the Amazon reviews to Susan Crawford's Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age, a book that seriously challenges many of the big broadband players' key talking points. It seemed fairly obvious from what we presented that someone had gone out and faked a bunch of negative reviews (and not made much of an effort to hide it).

Of course, astroturfing takes on many forms, and the folks over at Vice have done an excellent job highlighting how a bunch of "consumer groups" that seem to repeat big broadband talking points on net neutrality are, of course, not actual consumer groups, but mostly funded by the big broadband players themselves. And some of them have fairly massive budgets. Having at least some familiarity with the budgets of actual consumer rights/public interest organizations, there's a lot of money being dumped into the astroturfing groups which are often fighting against consumer interests, but always seem to have names that are exactly the opposite of their true position, with these two being the most prominent:

• Broadband for America seems to be pretty focused on making sure that broadband only comes from the oligopolists.
• American Consumer Institute may be the most amusing, since it's controlled and funded by lobbyists for the mobile operators.

This isn't a huge surprise. Last time there was a big net neutrality fight, there was a front group called "Hands Off the Internet", funded by the big telcos, which conveniently ignored all of the subsidies and tax-breaks the government gave them to install their networks in the first place. They had no problem with government "hands on the internet" when it saved them money (at the expense of taxpayers), but suddenly pretended that it would somehow magically be different if net neutrality rules were put on them.

And of course, the big broadband players have long histories with astroturfing, even for something as pointless as what channels will be included in TV bundles. On other things, such as fights over munibroadband, Comcast has been known to flood money into so-called "consumer" activist groups, only to watch them disappear the day after key votes happen. Verizon just successfully astroturfed New Jersey officials, to get out of fiber deployment promises. AT&T, of course, is also no stranger to astroturf efforts as well -- going back decades, including hilarious attempts to "fill seats" at public hearings with employees (this still happens today).

It was 1976, and a House subcommittee was considering a bill called the Consumer Communications Reform Act. The proposed law, heavily backed by AT&T, would have made the then monopoly even more of one by effectively declaring its long distance system America's "official" service. The bill clearly targeted a competitor: MCI's new microwave tower network, just being rolled out across the country. For days, Capitol Hill had been deluged by workers, priests, police chiefs, mayors, and anybody else Ma Bell could round up to support the legislation.

Then Representative Tim Wirth of Colorado walked into the hearing room. He saw that it was packed with people. Wirth asked the first panelist, an AT&T executive, to identify his colleagues. Five minutes later the man was still reading out names.

"Will everyone associated with AT&T just stand up?" an exasperated Wirth finally asked. The entire room rose. Everyone started laughing.

So, really, take with a serious grain of salt any claims you see from groups you've never heard from before that have names like the two listed above. As Vice's article points out, while it's not always easy, a little digging will show you who's really involved:

Take this opinion column by former Republican Senator John Sununu and former Democratic Congressman Harold Ford in the San Francisco Chronicle. The pair argues that reclassification would lead to "chronic underinvestment" in broadband services while threatening job loss. The disclaimer running under their byline says they are honorary co-chairs of Broadband for America, which the paper describes as "a coalition of 300 internet consumer advocates, content providers, and engineers."

A disclosure obtained by VICE from the National Cable and Telecom Association (NCTA), a trade group for ISPs, shows that the bulk of Broadband for America's recent $3.5 million budget is funded through a $2 million donation from NCTA. Last month, Broadband for America wrote a letter to the FCC bluntly demanding that the agency “categorically reject” any effort toward designating broadband as a public utility. It wasn't signed by any internet consumer advocates, as the Sununu-Ford letter suggests. The signatures on the letter reads like a who's who of ISP industry presidents and CEOs, including AT&T's Randall Stephenson, Cox Communications' Patrick Esser, NCTA president (and former FCC commissioner) Michael Powell, Verizon's Lowell McAdam, and Comcast's Brian Roberts.

[....]

Another group leading the charge is the American Consumer Institute. The organization recently filed a letter with the FCC opposing reclassification, and argues that ISPs should be left alone. "The fact is that the broadband market is competitive and becoming more so," wrote ACI, which claims that consumers currently enjoy "increased choice." In January, ACI called the Verizon lawsuit that struck down the original FCC net-neutrality guidelines, "a victory for consumers."

Why would a self-professed consumer advocacy group not only oppose moving toward net neutrality but claim that America's broadband market—one of the slowest, most expensive in the industrialized world with fewer than three choices in many parts of the country—is so great?

Perhaps because ACI, like Broadband for America, is financed by an ISP lobby group. Annual tax returns show that a foundation controlled by lobbyists from the cell phone industry, called MyWireless.org, has contributed to ACI since 2010.

Apparently, "consumers" means something rather different to this group.

Filed Under: astroturf, broadband, consumer groups, net neutrality
Companies: american consumer institute, at&t, broadband for america, comcast, verizon