'Broadband For America': Same Lobbying Crap. New Name.Meet the cable and phone undustry's latest astroturf attempt 05:22PM Friday Sep 25 2009 by Karl Bodetags: legal · business · Op/Ed · OdditiesBecause 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: 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. "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. Related:- Scott Cleland: Google Using 21x The Bandwidth They Pay For
- Verizon: We're Not Setting Broadband Definition Bar Low
- FCC Study: Open Access Lowers Prices, Improves Competition
- Barry Manilow Highlights 'Three Strikes' Law Stupidity
- Who Knew Senior Citizens Hated Net Neutrality?
- Retired Telco Exec Sent Sloppy AT&T Lobbying Letter
- Why Run Fiber When You Can Run Ads That Pretend You Do?
- FCC Apparently Forgets There's Limited Competition
|
 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
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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 | |
|  |  |   funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| 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 Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| 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/ | |
|  |   TKJunkMail Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| 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. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| 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/ | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   DataRiker Premium join:2002-05-19 Metairie, LA clubs:
1 edit | 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 join:2008-01-16 Chandler, AZ
·Cox HSI
·Callcentric
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·FrontierNet Intern..
| 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 Metairie, LA clubs:
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. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   DataRiker Premium join:2002-05-19 Metairie, LA clubs:
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 join:2008-01-16 Chandler, AZ
·Cox HSI
·Callcentric
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·FrontierNet Intern..
| 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 Metairie, LA clubs:
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. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   DataRiker Premium join:2002-05-19 Metairie, LA clubs: | Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join? Yes, you finally get it after intentionally misrepresenting what I said 3 times. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   DataRiker Premium join:2002-05-19 Metairie, LA clubs:
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. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   Random_nut
@net.in
| 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 Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
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/ | |
|  |  |  |  pules
join:2001-01-10 Los Angeles, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
·Verizon BroadbandA..
·ViaTalk
| 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 clubs: | 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. | |
|  |  |  |  |  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 Floral Park, NY
| 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 ? | |
|  joker5656
join:2006-06-23 Dallas, GA | So Wheres..... ACORN???  | |
|  chronoss2009
join:2008-09-23
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| 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.... | |
|  | |  |
|
|