dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
'Broadband For America': Same Lobbying Crap. New Name.
Meet the cable and phone undustry's latest astroturf attempt
by Karl Bode 05:22PM Friday Sep 25 2009
Because the nation's largest telecom companies clearly don't already exert enough political pressure on lawmakers crafting our national broadband plan, telecom vendors and broadband ISPs have created a new PR and lobbying operation called Broadband For America. The goal of the group, according to a group spokesman, is to be "a resource for policy-makers in an effort to ensure that the national broadband plan results in a faster, smarter and safer Internet." A brief introduction from the group's website:
quote:
Broadband for America is dedicated to making broadband available to all Americans regardless of geographic location; economic position; or social level. This goal requires we have (1) an accurate map of where broadband exists and where it is lacking and (2) an agreed-upon definition of what broadband actually is.
It's ironic, given the group's members have collectively spent billions of dollars preventing any of these goals from actually happening. For instance, group members Qwest and Cox have spent millions lobbying for laws that prevent your town or city from wiring itself with broadband, even in cases where nobody else will. Group members AT&T and Verizon have spent millions of dollars trying to prevent the public from having an accurate picture of broadband deployment, so deployment shortcomings aren't highlighted and competition improved.

Click for full size
"BfA represents a historic coming together of Internet service providers (ISPs), backbone providers, content providers, consumer groups, commercial groups, end-user organizations, and associations, all sharing the view that America should make broadband access to the Internet available to everyone," says a press release in our inbox.

This claim that their membership list is stocked with "consumer groups" turns out to be as bogus as their stated goals, given there's not a single viable consumer advocacy firm among the group's 100 members. BfA does, however, include dozens of "co-opted" minority, disability and other industry-funded groups. Said groups are used by lobbyists to pretend the interests and opinions presented to lawmakers have broad public support, and aren't just the monotonal whining of a handful of corporations interested solely in protecting revenues.

For example, a group that needs funding for a new events center will agree to parrot Verizon policy positions in public press releases. The National Association of the Deaf did as much for the baby bells when Verizon and AT&T were trying to eviscerate existing TV laws, even though the law the group was busy cheerfully supporting resulted in cherry-picked next-generation broadband deployment for NAD's constituents.

The fact that these groups are selling their constituents up the river apparently can't compete with the cash gleaned from major telecom companies. Alongside dozens of of hijacked interest groups like the "Livestock Marketing Association," sits meaningless groups that are completely bogus, like Consumers First, a fake Verizon consumer group in Pennsylvania that isn't even operational anymore, and Americans For Technology Leadership.

The end result is a dog and pony show that creates the illusion of diversity, but has at its heart the single lobbying voice of the nation's largest broadband providers. This message is repeated via policy puppets and subsequently in the press, and all of it is managed by cable or baby bell PR and public policy firms like Issue Dynamics in order to achieve one goal: protect company revenues from tough consumer protection laws and increased competition.

As we've illustrated, the nation's broadband plan already appears to be in trouble, with consumers once again largely omitted from the discussion, while the nation's largest telecom corporations get consistent access to the nation's lawmakers. Of course the very last thing our broadband plan needs is additional lobbying influence from the same companies that have fought broadband reform every single step of the way, but that's exactly what you're getting. Expect to see this reflected in the final national broadband plan when the FCC unveils it next February.

view:
topics flat nest 
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

1 edit

We'll know in February

We'll know in February when the FCC presents it's national broad plan if it's real or simply a bad joke. A good start would be a very minimal definition of broadband such as a minimum of 2 Mbps in one direction, a minimum of 1 Mbps in each direction with a reasonable level of quality of service including low latency at a reasonable monthly charge. Anything less than that will tell you that our government leaders are in bed with those who have prevented this country from having a workable broadband plan over the past few years.
oldbrit

join:2009-07-08
Dallas, TX

Re: We'll know in February

I saw the new FCC chair give a press conference this week in which he talked about net neutrality, access, etc.

At least he sounds like he supports what we consumers and small business people want and need.

That's a big step in the correct direction from the Bush administration, where they supported greedy corporate usurpation of the Internet to disadvantage competition.

But, as you said, we'll have to wait and see. Just because good words came out of the chairman's mouth doesn't mean he'll do the right thing when it's time to make the decision.

You can bet your last dollar, though, that whatever the FCC does, it will be written so that it sounds good - whether it is good for us or not.

It's like the health insurance reform. Congress will bar insurance companies from using pre-existing conditions to deny selling you a policy (sounds good...), but that doesn't mean they can't charge you 10 times as much as anyone else so you can't afford to buy it.

en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

Is it just me...

Or does it appear that AT&T is paying more for less lobbiests than TWC/Comcast/VZ,etc.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

jchambers28

join:2007-05-12
Alma, AR

Re: Is it just me...

its not just you . I see the same thing

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by en102:

Or does it appear that AT&T is paying more for less lobbiests than TWC/Comcast/VZ,etc.
The value of lobbyists isn't based on "HOW MANY" you have, but on how much access they have to key legislators. Those with great access to key congressional committees get paid more.

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

This is Verizon's domain, since 2001/2002...

The domain name being used tracks down to one used by Verizon in 2001/2002, although they tried to hide it when they registered it this time.

Whois Record

Registrant:
Systems Administrator
Broadband for America
PO Box 57244
Washington DC 20037
US
+1.8666468668 Fax:

Domain Name: broadbandforamerica.com

Registrar Name: Markmonitor.com
Registrar Whois: whois.markmonitor.com
Registrar Homepage: »www.markmonitor.com

Administrative Contact:
Systems Administrator
Broadband for America
PO Box 57244
Washington DC 20037
US
+1.8666468668 Fax:
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Systems Administrator
Broadband for America
PO Box 57244
Washington DC 20037
US
+1.8666468668 Fax:

Created on..............: 2002-08-30.
Expires on..............: 2010-08-30.
Record last updated on..: 2009-09-11.

Domain servers in listed order:

dns4.name-services.com
dns3.name-services.com
dns1.name-services.com
dns5.name-services.com
dns2.name-services.com

IMPORTANT: www.broadbandforamerica.com was up in 2001 ... the wayback machine has this page »web.archive.org/web/200201151758···privacy/ which shows that broadbandforamerica.com and broadbandforus.com were the same thing.

Whois Record

Registrant:
Verizon Trademark Services LLC
Verizon Trademark Services LLC
1320 North Court House Road
Arlington VA 22201
US
+1.7033513164 Fax: +1.7033513669

Domain Name: broadbandforus.com

Registrar Name: Markmonitor.com
Registrar Whois: whois.markmonitor.com
Registrar Homepage: »www.markmonitor.com

Administrative Contact:
Domain Administrator
Verizon Trademark Services LLC
1320 North Court House Road
Arlington VA 22201
US
+1.7033513164 Fax: +1.7033513669
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Domain Technician
Verizon
1320 North Court House Road
Arlington VA 22201
US
+1.7033513164 Fax: +1.7033513669

Created on..............: 2001-08-16.
Expires on..............: 2010-08-16.
Record last updated on..: 2009-05-31.

Domain servers in listed order:

ns2.idi.net
ns1.policy.net
ns2.policy.net

--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/
gorehound

join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME

Re: This is Verizon's domain, since 2001/2002...

assshole business men.sick of these lying groups

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?

Q. How can an inactive coalition join a grass-root's group in the past three month?
A. Both are fictional

Consumers First is listed on »www.broadbandforamerica.com/about/members and according to »tv.iciaus.com/gpage21.html it is an astroturf group for Verizon,

Consumers FIRST Pennsylvania-based group Consumers FIRST! (C.F.) claims to be a statewide coalition of concerned individuals and business and non-profit organizations committed to regulatory policies that benefit consumers. In news reports, C.F. has been described simply as a consumer" group. [Pittsburg Post-Gazette, With Verizon's foray into cable, municipalities worry about their rights, 7/21/06] However, the truth is that Consumers FIRST is an astroturf organization that exists solely to promote Verizon special interest legislation. Its members are groups and individuals with numerous financial ties to Verizon.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?

said by funchords:

Its members are groups and individuals with numerous financial ties to Verizon.
Sort of like how some of the consumer groups are funded by Google.

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?

said by FFH:

said by funchords:

Its members are groups and individuals with numerous financial ties to Verizon.
Sort of like how some of the consumer groups are funded by Google.
but its because "google is fighting for the rights of consumers". give it a year and we'll see what position google is in.
most of these "consumer groups" are nothing more than a populist microcosm of the knee-jerk reaction in today's politics.

every consumer group funded by a large corporation has an agenda to push that suits their corporate role in some fashion.
if you don't believe that, then i have a bridge to sell you.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

1 recommendation

Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?

said by tubbynet:

every consumer group funded by a large corporation has an agenda to push that suits their corporate role in some fashion.
if you don't believe that, then i have a bridge to sell you.
Perhaps, but let's not put the cart before the horse. Google is a minor funder of New America Foundation (my employer -- and I'm not a spokesman*) but we get accused of carrying Google's water, even though we're pretty much older than Google.

Do we get operating orders or some such from Google? nope, never.

Do they like what we do? I presume that's what's behind their funding.

Are we aware of that? yeah but we aren't doing the right thing if we let that affect us.

*I'm speaking only for myself.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?

said by funchords:

Do they like what we do? I presume that's what's behind their funding.
i've quoted the important part of this whole thing. google has a vested interest (as do all of those supporting your thinktank) in making sure that you accomplish whatever it is that you do. whether or not they give you "operating orders" is irrelevant.
going back to economics101 here, much like you don't start a business unless you can make money, you don't *spend* money unless you will get a return on investment in some way, shape, or form. i'm sorry, you can't pay your bills with karma.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit

1 recommendation

Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?

said by tubbynet:

said by funchords:

Do they like what we do? I presume that's what's behind their funding.
i've quoted the important part of this whole thing. google has a vested interest (as do all of those supporting your thinktank) in making sure that you accomplish whatever it is that you do. whether or not they give you "operating orders" is irrelevant.
going back to economics101 here, much like you don't start a business unless you can make money, you don't *spend* money unless you will get a return on investment in some way, shape, or form. i'm sorry, you can't pay your bills with karma.

q.
What is relevant here is that Rob is the only one here with a track record of defending our rights.

The fact that he receives no operating orders from Google is very relevant. In fact, the most relevant.

The fact that you suppose nobody would invest in anything without something in return is not only wrong but highly irrelevant.

In this case, google absolutely wants something in return, but how they are doing it is more ethical. Rather than pay political zombies, they found somebody who champions there position. Not only more effective, but more morally sound as well.

We know rob here and what he is about.

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?

said by DataRiker:

you suppose nobody would invest in anything without something in return is not only wrong but highly irrelevant
...
google absolutely wants something in return
i'm sorry. i've bolded all the parts of your post that lead me to not listen...

sorry.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

2 edits

Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?

said by tubbynet:

said by DataRiker:

you suppose nobody would invest in anything without something in return is not only wrong but highly irrelevant
...
google absolutely wants something in return
i'm sorry. i've bolded all the parts of your post that lead me to not listen...

sorry.

q.
You assumed a contradiction because your not a careful reader.

You have only been here a short time, and you give off an awful presence. Your posts are always argumentative and never helpful.

Firstly, giving a hollow implication to one of the most respected members of our site is not a good start. His credibility, unlike yours has been cemented many times over.

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?

said by DataRiker:

Guess you have never heard of the Gates foundation?
yes. i have actually. but lets talk about relevancy here.
you said that my statement was not only wrong, but irrelevant. you then went on to explain that google wanted something in return. in this context, my statement was highly relevant and supported by your position.
i stopped listening because of the contradiction. it was not assumed (hence the reason it was bolded).

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

3 edits

Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?

said by tubbynet:

said by DataRiker:

Guess you have never heard of the Gates foundation?
yes. i have actually. but lets talk about relevancy here.
you said that my statement was not only wrong, but irrelevant. you then went on to explain that google wanted something in return. in this context, my statement was highly relevant and supported by your position.
i stopped listening because of the contradiction. it was not assumed (hence the reason it was bolded).

q.
Yes your statement was wrong and irrelevant. You have still assumed my point, most incorrectly I might add.

Your whole statement is a overly broad, unfalsifiable statement. Usually used unknowingly by people who think they are smarter than everyone else.

By the way, the words "nobody" and "google" are not the same thing, thus disproving your whole "contradiction".

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?

said by DataRiker:

Yes your statement was wrong and irrelevant. You have still assumed my point, most incorrectly I might add.
as you see it, since it has the unintended consequence of being misunderstood.

you seem to think i am wrong in stating what i did, and that you feel that google is doing this for the "feel good feeling". i tend to take the view that (while their are islolated instances of "general good") *corporations* donate because they have some vested interest. there are good corporations and there are good and benevolent individuals, but on the whole, i'd assume that my position is more relevant and much more common than the one that you are trying to suppose. if it wasn't, then why are there all of these corporate funded lobbyingconsumer interest groups? corporations have a vested interest in saving their bottom line. i'm not saying its wrong, but i'm saying that you can't get lost in the topic of the argument; you have to understand what this may lead to and who is supporting it.

call me cynical, call me a corporate shill; it doesn't matter.

if you choose to think that google is funding these "net neutrality thinktanks" for their own good and the fact that they are "looking out for the consumer", then thats your choice. however, in thinking that, you must ask yourself, why are there so many people who are up in arms over google's tracking/ad/privacy policies because they are far-reaching?

again, i support my position wholeheartedly. your posting of a contradiction against my argument only leads support to what i was saying in the first place.
your posts will do nothing to change that.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit

Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?

Still missed my point. What is relevant here is how they are funding, not why.

The why is debatable, the how is not. The fact that you don't understand the difference is pretty it telling.

Anyone has the right to fund what they believe in, nobody had the right to fraudulently mislead people (astroturf).

My alleged contradiction is nothing but your inability to read and/or think critically.

From my original post out:

but how they are doing it is more ethical. Rather than pay political zombies, they found somebody who champions there position. Not only more effective, but more morally sound as well.

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?

said by DataRiker:

Anyone has the right to fund what they believe in
right, and most do because they have a vested interest in the outcome of what is being lobbied for.

nobody had the right to fraudulently mislead people (astroturf).
i never said google was astroturfing (pot, meet kettle). in fact, while funchords See Profile is not an official spokesman, if google was "astroturfing" his group, i'm pretty sure they'd want to keep it a secret, or at least hide it from a pretty popular site for people interested in the sort of thing that is being "astroturfed".

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?

Yes, you finally get it after intentionally misrepresenting what I said 3 times.

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?

said by DataRiker:

Yes, you finally get it after intentionally misrepresenting what I said 3 times.
apparently you *assumed* that by having a vested interest in the outcome, i meant astroturfing.

but you are more than welcome to criticize *my* comprehension ability.



q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

3 edits

Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?

During your original statement you supposed that if somebody is investing money for a cause there must be some return ( you did use the general construct "you")

My response was this:

"The fact that you suppose nobody would invest in anything without something in return is not only wrong but highly irrelevant"

Which is true. Again a counter example would be the Gates foundation. (there are countless, but that's an easy one)

Now on to the troubling part for you, my next statement:

In this case, google absolutely wants something in return, but how they are doing it is more ethical. Rather than pay political zombies, they found somebody who champions there position. Not only more effective, but more morally sound as well.

I did notice your convenient omission of "In this case"

Something tells me you comprehended my original point just fine but rather then debate on the merits you took the low road.
Expand your moderator at work

Random_nut

@vsnl.net.in
said by DataRiker:

said by tubbynet:

said by DataRiker:

By the way, the words "nobody" and "google" are not the same thing, thus disproving your whole "contradiction".
priceless - i was going to write that almost verbatim

This is the third time you beat me too it !

Shheesh

@verizon.net

1 edit
Minor funder Rob? Hah! Eric Schmidt gave you guys $1 million and got a board seat.

Google donates more than $450 million in free adwords through Google.org to 501(c)3's. How many of them are carrying the Goog's water? They admit that Google.org was created as a for-profit rather than a non-profit specifically so they could lobby on policy issues without all that messy non-profit disclosure silliness. They have never released who this money is going to... And not only that, as a condition of receiving the free adwords goodies, the recipients are contractually prevented from disclosing the terms and conditions of the goodies. So much for all that talk of transparency.

That would be the equivalent of cablecos donating $450 million in free air time on their stations for public policy groups to advertise in support of cable issues. I could only imagine the hew and cry from NAF and others if that were the case.

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

1 edit

Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?

said by Shheesh :

Minor funder Rob? Hah! Eric Schmidt gave you guys $1 million and got a board seat.
If Google wants to give money, Google can give the money and it would give it to something better targeted than New America Foundation -- which mostly concerns itself with education, health care, foreign policy, and etc..

I admit I'm not sophisticated in the non-profit operations, including mine, but if Google was really pushing its NN agenda vs. Schmidt following his personal public policy interests, why dilute that support by being a general contributor to NAF? Why not donate to someone who is only working on tech and privacy issues?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
said by FFH:

Sort of like how some of the consumer groups are funded by Google.
You can guarantee none of Google's consumer groups will be allowed membership in Broadband America, that's for sure.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
pules

join:2001-01-10
Los Angeles, CA

1 recommendation

Very well written!

Thanks Karl.

You always provide well written, informative articles that not just show how the ISP/TelComm industry works, but just how our government works. Corruption is all over the place, but we're too damn busy being distracted by other things.

Reading this pisses me off, but I'm in the IT industry and I care about this kind of stuff. I don't think "the ave Joe" really understands how much lobbyist have influence over their day to day lives.

I'll do my part to share this and other info like this, but as long as we're distracted by pretty words and "watch dogs" not sure if much will happen.

Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA

Re: Very well written!

Well written, informative, and heavily biased... Too bad Justin doesn't run this place anymore... It has vastly more legitimacy.
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

Re: Very well written!

said by Alpine:

Well written, informative, and heavily biased... Too bad Justin doesn't run this place anymore... It has vastly more legitimacy.
Yeah, biased into TELLING the TRUTH, a rarity these days with manipulated media and lobbyists. Good job, Karl, wish there were more people like you.

hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
kudos:1

Vz

just lobby the whole damn thing will you?
johnh123

join:2002-11-19
Chicago, IL

good for them

Well, I hope they are successful in derailing the broadband giveaway. The whole program is just a spectacularly wasteful boondoggle, that even without the current broadband kings trying to derail it would accomplish very little, but at a very great cost.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Re: good for them

You don't get it. They goal is not to derail the wasteful boondoggle. It's to make sure it is a wasteful boondoggle, and that the money will go to them.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Re: good for them

said by KrK:

It's to make sure it is a wasteful boondoggle, and that the money will go to them.
Good point, the money will be spent no matter what so do you want it to do so the public some good or do you just want your government to kiss corporate arse?
jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA

Yowza

Not a surprise at all. I hope the masses see this front for what it is...
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

spending to be greedy?

byte limit/caps and/or surcharged data,
surcharging deployments,
cherry picking,
legislative efforts to block municipal competition,
legislative efforts to block second and third provider compeittion,
broken promises of subsidy & tax relief for broadband deployments & speed guarantees,
rboc mergers,
cableco mergers,

I don't think the industry has a very good reputation in the past 15 years of doing what the consumer wants... and no lobbying group can change COLD HARD FACTS on what ACTUALLY HAPPENED from 1995-2009.
SuperWISP

join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

Not "astroturf"

This site lists its supporters here; therefore, it isn't "astroturf."

By contrast, the so-called "public interest" groups which are lobbying for anti-consumer "network neutrality" regulation attempt to hide the fact that they're bankrolled and/or controlled by large corporations, particularly Google. (For example, the New America Foundation receives millions of Googlebucks from Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who also just happens to be chairman of the group. Do you think for one minute that this group would adopt any position that wasn't 100% consistent with Google's agenda?)
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

Re: Not "astroturf"

One of those listed "supporters" is Comcast, Brent. Need I say more ?
LowRider

join:2006-06-23
Douglasville, GA

So Wheres.....

ACORN???
33358088
Premium
join:2008-09-23
kudos:2

i call foul on america for broadband

seeing how time warner is basically a american company , yea run by a canuck but whatever...anyways they own in USA TWC who would make you pay thorugh the nose for capping and useage and guess what they own ROGERS in canada....who actually does it really bad.

OH and Microsoft your part of the BCE familly in stocks and bonds so just saying your parting the website aint nothing big. So the lies and evil is being spread around as they look to continue the massive profits and scams they once got form real estate and loan sharking....