Neil, I continue to believe you have a big misunderstanding about what Net Neutrality is really all about. In fact, it’s designed to preserve the status quo of the Internet as it exists today, free from providers censoring content they don’t like, impeding traffic for “network management,” and building a platform that lets only the biggest voices through on the fast lane (because they paid for premium service).

Net Neutrality preserves the freedom we all enjoy on the Internet today, where your ideas can stand on equal terms with any mainstream media outlet or big corporate provider who can afford to pay. That’s the amazing thing about the Internet. Blogs like RedState can bypass the mainstream media and present their own views without going through a media filter.

Now imagine what happens if a corporate provider doesn’t like your views, or you didn’t pay the premium each provider could charge to agree to keep your views on the Internet fast lane. If a consumer gets one page in three seconds and had to wait for 20 seconds for yours, they are likely to not wait around for yours.

In Canada, where Net Neutrality does not exist, an ISP blocked not just one, but an entire block of IP addresses trying to keep one of their critics from being seen. Broadband service in Canada is speed throttled for non-preferred applications like peer to peer (by up to 90%), and Internet Overcharging schemes like usage allowances and caps combined with overlimit fees and penalties for exceeding them are commonplace.

None of this is theoretical — it’s all happened just to our north. In the United States, the cable industry is experimenting with a project called TV Everywhere, which will provide on-demand access to potentially hundreds of cable network shows, but only to “authenticated” cable subscribers. Online video is something the cable broadband providers want to control very much, as Dr. John Malone, who used to run TCI, has said publicly. I don’t mind if they only provide the content to cable subscribers, but will it be provided to their customers on a level playing field? Do you think they will throttle the speeds of their own content? What about their competitors?

I have no idea where people get the idea Net Neutrality is about an Obama/Socialist Internet takeover. In fact, it assures the exact opposite by prohibiting ISPs from interfering with legal content.

Neil, you said: “Only opponents like Broadband for America, a group promoting greater Internet access across America, gets that tag. I mean sure, when I think ‘corporate astroturf’, I think of BfA members like the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Child Safety Task Force, Hispanic Leadership Fund, the Livestock Marketing association, and the Jewish Energy Project. That’s just the corporate Axis of Evil right there, Save the Internet wants you to think.”

I learned about BfA last week and saw the list of their 100 members. Most of them were obviously equipment manufacturers or telecommunications companies. But I wondered what in the world some of those public interest groups you mentioned, among others, were doing as members of this group. I spent last week researching ALL 100+ and the results are posted starting here: ht tp://stopthecap.com/2009/10/02/special-report-astroturf-overload-broadband-for-america-one-giant-industry-front-group/

I could not find a single group that I could verify as representing actual consumers. Not one. The overwhelming majority of those public interest groups either received substantial funding from AT&T and/or Verizon, or had a company executive on their Board of Directors. I also found disturbing connections between several of the groups and Washington, DC lobbying and PR firms who have a habit of paying to use an organization’s name for a client’s agenda.

Let’s review just a few:

National Black Chamber of Commerce — This group’s stated purpose: “To economically empower and sustain African American communities through entrepreneurship and capitalistic activity within the United States and via interaction with the Black Diaspora.” Their website hides their membership list, stating: “The National Black Chamber of Commerce does not distribute information about our members to protect their privacy.” Uh huh. We can take a wild guess however, based on their extended reach into the astroturf diaspora with memberships in both “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us. Back in December 2007 before the corporate sponsors were removed from the website for ‘their privacy,’ the group noted it had AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon among its members.

Child Safety Task Force: Group president Robert K. Johnson is the Zelig of astroturfers. He’s everywhere. He was president of the now-defunct Consumers for Cable Choice, a front group for AT&T and other providers advocating for telco TV and strident opposition to Net Neutrality. Amusingly, Johnson’s group broadened its focus by dropping the word “cable” from its title and renaming themselves Consumers for Competitive Choice (C4CC). New name, same old notorious astroturfing.

Johnson also founded Consumers’ Voice, which Verizon trashed in 2002: “Consumers’ Voice . . . should really be named `AT&T’s Voice.’ At a recent National Conference of State Legislatures meeting, a representative from this group admitted that it is entirely supported by AT&T. Moreover, Consumers’ Voice has no state chapters or affiliates. Johnson actually is an AT&T hired gun.” – William R. Roberts, president, Verizon Maryland, Inc., (Cumberland Times-News, August 22, 2002.)

The Jewish Energy Project is defunct. Try and visit their website, but I’d answer no when your browser warns you it is about to log you onto the founder’s Gmail account.

You get the point. My personal favorite was the Intertribal Agriculture Council — IAC was founded in 1987 to pursue and promote the conservation, development and use of Native American agricultural resources for the betterment of Native Americans. Oddly, one of the priorities for IAC in 2008 was being a full-throated supporter of the Sirius-XM Radio merger. It also joined forces with the Alliance for Aviation Across America (along with other BfA members including the National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry and the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association) to oppose a proposal to shift some of airline carriers’ federal tax burden to small-jet operators.

Odd how groups with Mission Statements that in no way relate to any of the broadband issues BfA will concern itself with: no regulation, no Net Neutrality, but yes to government handouts to providers to expand broadband, all seem to be members of this group, and often also magically chimed in on some other telecom issues, such as urging approval of Verizon’s merger with NorthPoint Communications, or their buyout of Alltel.

If I believed for a second Net Neutrality would give the government content control over the Internet, I’d be right there with you. But it does not. All it says is that providers, as they earn billion in profits from the existing open platform, should leave it that way – open, and still profitable.

By the way, I’m just an ordinary consumer too. No industry money, no front group. Our site got started when ISPs started trying to throw ridiculous usage caps on our DSL and cable modem broadband service as low as just 5GB per month. We got involved to fight back. Biggest advice I can give you is never simply take what you’re handed. Check it out yourself and be careful of hidden agendas and industry money, because it’s all over the place.

Phillip Dampier
Editor, Stop the Cap!