FCC Chair Wheeler: I Want to Regulate the Internet As a Utility

by Gaius Publius

In a dramatic statement, issued through Wired magazine, FCC Chairman (and former telecom lobbyist) Tom Wheeler has "fully" endorsed reclassifying the Internet as a common carrier under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. In other words, the Internet, all of it, will be regulated as a "utility," the way your phone service is.

Wheeler's piece opens with a fascinating story in which he tells his own (bad) experience as a fledgling Internet provider dealing with the lock-out policies of cable providers — while Steve Case, the founder of what would become AOL, was successfully selling a similar, but much inferior product using common-carrier–protected phone lines. That part is not just interesting; it makes what follows entirely credible.

Then Wheeler writes this:

Originally, I believed that the FCC could assure internet openness through a determination of “commercial reasonableness” under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While a recent court decision seemed to draw a roadmap for using this approach, I became concerned that this relatively new concept might, down the road, be interpreted to mean what is reasonable for commercial interests, not consumers.

That is why I am proposing that the FCC use its Title II ["common carrier"] authority to implement and enforce open internet protections.

Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission.

All the right words, finally.

Words and Deeds

Still, so far just words. The deeds will have to match them. Two pieces for you. One, this from one of the main advocacy groups, Popular Resistance (my emphasis throughout):

Today [February 4] is the day that the FCC announced the rules for net neutrality that will be voted upon at their next meeting on February 26. Together, our work over the past year is the reason that we achieved reclassification of the Internet as a common carrier under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. We are on the verge of a tremendous people powered victory over the telecom industry. We expect more analysis of the actual language to come soon. But for now, we can celebrate that people power conquered the cable industry and welcome net neutrality back. (Here is a fact sheet from the FCC on the proposed rule.)

We agree with Chairman Wheeler that the interests of the telecoms is not always consistent with the public interest. [Yes, Wheeler actually said that.] We urge the Chairman to not compromise with telecoms and Internet providers as this is the opportunity to follow the wishes of the American people and put in place rules that ensure the Internet is free of discrimination.

We are also pleased to see that proposals in Congress for fake net neutrality are not moving forward. Both political parties would be wise to side with the American people, small businesses, Silicon Valley and other Internet-based businesses rather than the telecom companies. The public wants real Net Neutrality.

We look forward to reviewing the final rule but if it is consistent with the statement issued today, we will do all we can to ensure that the telecom’s influence in Congress does not undo rules that provide for real Net Neutrality and preserve the dynamism of the Internet as a democratized form of communication and vehicle for innovation.

So, notes of relief, notes of caution. Reasons for concern are two. One, that Wheeler will weasel in a way that matters. From his statement linked above:

All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks. To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling. Over the last 21 years, the wireless industry has invested almost $300 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can encourage investment and competition.

Like Popular Resistance, we'll have to see what that means. "Returns" means profit. Still, he's firm and clear on many of the rules he's proposing, like no throttling, blocking, or "fast lanes." See page 2 of the FCC's Fact Sheet (pdf) for that. Page 3 talks about "Forbearance," Title II regulations that won't apply, which is where we could get some take-back.

Industry Reaction

The second note of concern is Congress and its (bought-and-paid) attempt to block this move. As you read above in the Popular Resistance statement, industry shills in Congress (is it really just Republicans?) are working to prevent this reclassification. The latest attempt is a set of bills before the House and Senate introduced by Sen. John Thune and Rep. Fred Upton. The analysis is here. In essence, these bills neuter both the public Internet and the FCC's ability to regulate it.

But according to Politico:

[Sen. John] Thune told MT on Tuesday [February 3] that it’s “unlikely” that the Republican draft net neutrality bill will move forward before the FCC votes on Wheeler’s net neutrality proposal later this month. There "probably" won't be a markup of the bill "any time soon," he said, adding that he’s still trying to get Democrats to support the bill.

Plus, Harry Reid is on the side of the angels on this one. So far, so good on that front. By the way, get ready for more of this from the heavy manipulators of the right-wing thought machine:

There’s a debate raging about how the FCC should regulate the Internet. Some advocates are pushing for “Title II.” That’s code for 1930s-style utility regulation. Title II would put the FCC squarely in the middle of the Internet — right beside the NSA. It saddles the Internet with price controls and other heavy-handed rules from a thankfully long-gone era. The debate over Title II isn’t a debate over net neutrality, which is why many net neutrality proponents actually oppose Title II. Instead, it’s a debate between a vocal minority that wants greater government control over broadband companies, and defenders of a bipartisan consensus around a “Hands Off the Internet” approach. ...

Drivel. Focus-tested. Industry-bought. But that's where they're headed. (About that "bipartisan consensus," I know it exists. I'd love to have the names of any elected Democrat who signs onto this pushback.)

The Ruling Will Apply Very Broadly

What's striking (and certain) about this proposal is how sweeping it is. At least in the main, nothing is being finessed. From the FCC Fact Sheet again:

First, the Chairman’s proposal would reclassify “broadband Internet access service”—that’s the retail broadband service Americans buy from cable, phone, and wireless providers—as a telecommunications service under Title II. We believe that this step addresses any limitations that past classification decisions placed on our ability to adopt strong Open Internet rules, as interpreted by the D.C. Circuit in the Verizon case last year. But just in case, we also make clear that if a court finds that it is necessary to classify the service that broadband providers make available to “edge providers,” it too is a Title II telecommunications service. (To be clear, this is not a “hybrid”— both the service to the end user and to the edge provider are classified under Title II.)

Nice. Not much weasel there. The Verge comments on this as well:

The biggest revelation from the proposal is the decision to lump wireless networks in with wired broadband, something the FCC has avoided doing for years thanks to enormous pressure from Verizon and AT&T. "I propose to fully apply — for the first time ever — those bright-line rules to mobile broadband," Wheeler wrote. "My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission." Including wireless providers in the rules is a hugely important move, since we've seen that the biggest players have been willing and able to abuse internet openness. AT&T once blocked FaceTime for completely arbitrary reasons, and most recently, T-Mobile has disregarded the principles of net neutrality by giving some music companies special exemptions from data caps.

As near as I can tell, it's all one and all lumped together — phone lines, cable, mobile devices and cell phone towers, string cheese, whatever. If it gives you the Internet, it's a common carrier and regulated under Title II, period. Again, so far, so good.

Bottom Line: February 26 Could Be Internet Freedom Day

The time between now and February 26, when the full FCC votes on the rules, will be hugely important. Telecom companies are formidable beasts, giants, with money to spare and to burn. They will not go quietly. The good news is that Obama appears firmly in the good camp (finally!) and other Democrats appear to be holding fire, however much some of them want that good telecom money for themselves. Thune, as you read, is slow-walking his bill, and Reid has not waffled.

Things to watch: The "forbearances" contained in the final language. The vote of the commissioners themselves. The post-decision reaction of the telecoms.

Nevertheless, we're that close. Finally.

[Update: Corrected typo: Steve Case, not Tom Case.]

GP

Cross-posted with permission from Digby's Hullabaloo.

Opening up cell phones to robocalls? Just one "benefit" of the Right's relentless crusade to make America the Land of Morons

"I completely understand the concerns that people have expressed about the bill and the good thing about our system is that there is always opportunity for improvement. In fact, because this debate has begun, discussions are now taking place on the best way to strengthen the rules to address consumer privacy expectations with their mobile phones. . . ."

-- from a statement by Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), the
only Dem co-sponsor of a bill to legalize cell-phone robocalls

by Ken

What else do we learn in this "extremely defensive statement" (as Daily Kos's Chris Bowers describes it, in a mailing we'll come back to) from Congressman Towns, the only Democratic co-sponsor of a bill that would deep-six the 20-year-old ban on robocalls to cell phones? Well, we learn that, as the congressman says he learned from the recent hearings, "this 20-year old law prevents consumers from getting useful information about their accounts using technology that did not exist when the law was originally passed," and also apparently somehow prevents FedEx and UPS from "using modern technology to deliver your holiday gifts on time." (I think these are two separate things. The congressman is pretty vague about them.) And, oh yes, this nasty old law "limits notifications about threats such as fraud alerts, data breaches, and product recalls."

Ah, so that's why those patriotic and public-spirited business interests are pushing so hard to disappear the law that bans sending recorded-message calls to cell phones without the user's prior approval of such messaging. It's so we can get our holiday gifts on time, and learn about data breaches and product recalls!

WELCOME TO THE AMERICA OF THE KOCH BROS.
AND THE OTHER MEGACORPORATE ELITES

The other day, while discussing the Right's methodical cultivation of a "bedimmed and whipped-up base" that in the new presidential campaign cycle "will only accept a cynically flagrant liar or a clueless cluck," I suggested that "we might want to ponder who thought this would be a shrewd strategy and why" and added that "I have my own thoughts." I didn't mean to be oblique or suggest some deep, dark mystery. I just didn't feel like getting into it then.

But all I had in mind was stuff like this "Send in the robocallers" initiative. Here's what Chris Bowers has to say in an e-mailing that most DWT readers probably got:

Republicans are pushing new legislation that would end the 20-year ban on telemarketers calling cell phones. This would be an extremely annoying invasion of privacy. It would also be another congressional giveaway to big corporations, since robocalls from telemarketers would count against your monthly minutes.

We have to stop this. Join with CREDO Action and Daily Kos to tell Congress not to allow telemarketers to call your cell phone.

The public outcry against this bill is already making a difference. The lone Democratic co-sponsor, Representative Ed Towns of New York, released an extremely defensive statement after constituents gave him an earful about the bill at a recent town hall.

If no Democrats support this bill, then it will be defeated. The surest path to making that happen is for people to keep giving Congress an earful. Please sign the petition telling Congress not to allow telemarketers to call your cell phone.

Keep fighting,
Chris Bowers
Campaign Director, Daily Kos

OH NO, CELL-PHONE USERS CAN'T GET THEIR HOLIDAY GIFTS!
HERE'S ED TOWNS'S "EXTREMELY DEFENSIVE STATEMENT"

Yeah, I thought you'd enjoy this, 'cause it's pretty darned entertaining. I know some of you were probably thinking the only imaginable reason why Congressman Towns has signed onto this right-wing thug initiative is that he's on the take or something. No, not at all!

It is undeniable that the telecommunications landscape has changed dramatically in the last twenty years. A large percentage of households have eliminated their landlines and many people rely almost exclusively on cell phones as their only means of contact. The rules and laws governing how businesses and consumers interact have not kept up with these developments. To put it in context, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act was passed some two years before the first text messaging was ever sent.

We on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce have been engaging in debates about privacy and the responsible use of technology for as long as I can remember. When Congressman Terry approached me to ask if I would join him in opening up this discussion on whether the TCPA needs to be updated to take into account new consumer attitudes and their need for timely information about their accounts, I thought this was as an appropriate time as ever.

I completely understand the concerns that people have expressed about the bill and the good thing about our system is that there is always opportunity for improvement. In fact, because this debate has begun, discussions are now taking place on the best way to strengthen the rules to address consumer privacy expectations with their mobile phones. I fully support these efforts and will fight to see that included in any final product. The intent of the bill is to maintain bans on telemarketing and to retain the popular “Do-Not-Call” regulations. I am pleased that we had a hearing to get all the input we can from the stakeholders in this debate. During the hearing, I thought it was especially interesting to hear how this 20-year old law prevents consumers from getting useful information about their accounts using technology that did not exist when the law was originally passed. Do we really want to stop FedEx or UPS using modern technology to deliver your holiday gifts on time? Of course not, but that is what we heard at the hearing is one consequence of this 20-year old law. Other consequences we heard were about how the law limits notifications about threats such as fraud alerts, data breaches, and product recalls.

Now I and my colleagues on the committee can work to come to agreement on the best way to allow consumers to control how they receive these informational communications and to decide the best way to regulate, prevent, and punish any abuse. We will continue to gather input from constituents and groups interested in striking the right balance. I believe we can find that balance and I am glad our Committee is engaging in this debate.

Ha-ha-ha, Congressman! Oh wait, you're serious? Oops, sorry!

THE POINT IS THAT UNDER COVER OF YELLING
AND WAILING ABOUT IDEOLOGICAL IMBECILITIES . . .

. . . the economic elites are slipping and slamming through the remainder of their wish list, including stuff they thought was beyond their wildest imaginings. In fact, we've already reached the point where the only limitations on the elites' lust for power and money are the limitations on their own imaginings.

The insatiable predators of the Corporate Right can continue and accelerate their rampaging drive of the last several decades to remake the culture of the country to their liking, which is to say to remove as much as possible of the network of limitations on their behavior, painstakingly put in place to provide us with some protection against the insatiable greed of which humans are capable, and thereby not just sanction but make to appear "normal" and even "beneficial" their encroachments across the board of American life.

It's ironic -- or maybe not ironic, but just what the campaign called for -- that the Right has mobilized around a delusional last stand to protect its "freedoms," when what it's been bred to do is abandon the meaningful freedoms to elites who stand to clean up on them. Welcome to the Koch Bros.' and Gov. Scott Walker's (and all those other fire-breathing far-right-wing governors') America.

Hey, aren't you going to answer your cell phone? Could be important product-recall information. Luckily, you can listen to the message at your convenience. The important thing is, you're paying for the call regardless!

THE CAMPAIGN TO PUT US ALL AT THE MERCY
OF THE CORPORATE ELITES HAS COUNTLESS TENTACLES

And they're in place nationwide at all levels of government. See, for example, Howie's 2pm PT post (see below) on the Republican smear campaign trained on Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren and the coincidentally successful GOP filibuster that nullified the Senate's 53-45 vote to confirm Richard Cordray to head the Warren-conceived Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Sure, as Howie noted, the anti-Warren smears aren't just monumentally dishonest, they're imbecilic on their face, but haven't Karl Rove and his kind (and of course their Big Money bankrollers) gone to untold trouble and expense to create a playing field of imbeciles? And sure, the Republican opposition to the Cordray nomination is all lies, but if that's what it takes to enable them to step up the pressure to strip away consumer protection, well, what's a few hundred, or a few thousand, more lies to people who have already solemnly sworn never to speak the truth in public, so help them God?

By the way, I might note that of the two "old friends," Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Jeff Merkley, Howie called on in his post as standing up to the marauding elites, one isn't going to be on the premises come the 113th Congress.

UPDATE: Looking For A Villain? Try Fred Upton (R-MI)

Upton is the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and he's the power behind HR 3035, the Mobile Informational Call Act of 2011. Upton has opposed every consumer protection bill that has come along and the collection agencies and other disreputable characters behind this one know Upton is their man. The corporations Upton is working with the push this bill forward include American Bankers Association, ACA International, Air Transport Association, Consumer Bankers Association, Coalition of Higher Education Assistance Organizations, Edison Electric Institute, Education Finance Council, Financial Services Roundtable, Housing Policy Council, Mortgage Bankers Association, National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO), National Council of Higher Education Loan Program, Student Loan Servicing Alliance, Student Loan Servicing Alliance Private Loan Committee, The Clearing House, and, of course, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In case you are interested in sending Upton a message you don't approve of this law, you can contribute to the progressive Democrat running against him in his Michigan district, John Waltz. And you can do that right here on the main Blue America page. Waltz vehemently opposes this invasion of privacy.

#

Probably telecom dualopolists AT&T and Verizon now hate NYS AG Eric Schneiderman as much as the banksters do -- and the more corrupt state AGs

Iowa AG Tom Miller: He's shocked, shocked, that anyone could question his toughness with the banks after he raised hundreds of thousands of simoleons from the financial sector upon announcing his intent to "investigate" the banks, which he has done so, so hard. I bet the joke'll be on the banksters when Tom hurls all that filthy lucre back at their stinking feet! (Anytime now, Tom.)

by Ken

Before we descend to the hilarity of sleazebag of the week Tom Miller, let's make sure to get the news out -- and this is big news, regarding what was looking like an unstoppable takeover of T-Mobile by AT&T. From Bloomberg:

U.S. Files to Block AT&T, T-Mobile Merger

By Tom Schoenberg, Sara Forden and Jeff Bliss - Aug 31, 2011

The U.S. Justice Department sued to block AT&T Inc.’s proposed $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile USA Inc., saying the deal would “substantially lessen competition” in the wireless market.

The government is seeking a declaration that AT&T’s takeover of T-Mobile, a unit of Deutsche Telekom AG (DTE), would violate U.S. antitrust law, according to a complaint filed today in federal court in Washington. The U.S. also asked for a court order blocking implementation of the deal, the largest announced acquisition of the year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

“I don’t see any room to settle the case,” said Bert Foer, head of the American Antitrust Institute in Washington, in an interview. “They have clearly drawn a line in the sand.”

AT&T Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson’s proposed purchase of Bellevue, Washington-based T-Mobile, announced in March, would combine the second- and fourth-largest carriers to create a new market leader ahead of No. 1 Verizon Wireless. The new company would dwarf current No. 3 carrier Sprint Nextel Corp. (S), which argued against the deal.

“AT&T’s elimination of T-Mobile as an independent, low- priced rival would remove a significant competitive force from the market,” the government said in court papers. Dallas-based AT&T fell as much as 5.5 percent in New York trading after Bloomberg News broke the news of the lawsuit. . . .

Now I don't suppose the DoJ is likely to discuss how it reached the decision to intervene, but there's good reason to think that some role, and possibly a major one, was played by the office of New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Antitrust Bureau Chief Richard Schwartz issued a statement today saying that his boss "looks forward to reviewing the Department of Justice’s complaint to determine the best course forward on behalf of New York consumers and businesses."

Since March, Attorney General Schneiderman has played a major role in the review of the proposed AT&T, T-Mobile merger. Working in close partnership with the Department of Justice, this office has played a leadership role in a group of 26 states conducting interviews and gathering evidence central to this investigation. We have conducted numerous interviews of business enterprise customers throughout New York State and throughout the country to assess whether the merger would result in harm to competition to the business enterprise market, and closely analyzed the parties' claims that the merger would lower costs and improve service to consumers.

Attorney General Schneiderman remains particularly concerned that the proposed merger would stifle competition in markets that are crucial to New York's consumers and businesses. This includes concerns about vulnerable upstate communities, where concentration in some markets is already very high, and the impacts on New York City’s information-intensive economy, which is particularly dependent on mobile wireless services. Simply put, the impacts of this proposed merger on wireless competition, economic growth, and technological innovation could be enormous.

(The release notes that Schneiderman announced in March "that this office would conduct a comprehensive review of the proposed merger.")

It comes as something of a surprise to think that there are people with decision-making authority in the DoJ who might actually be listening to AG Schneiderman. The last we heard, he was being kicked off of the the coalition of state AGs' executive committee that's been exploring some sort of settlement with the big banks over their conduct in the collapsed mortgage industry, presumably out of pique over Schneiderman's outspoken opposition to the proposed "settlement," whereby the banksters would kick in some cash in exchange for being relieved of pretty much any further liability -- allowing them, in other words, to "move on" rather than being forced forever to "look back."

Which is apparently how we address all major problems in the 21st century. We just move on

To be sure, Schneiderman isn't alone among the state AGs. There's a small but hardy band (necessarily hardy, considering how they're regarded by most of their fellows) who also take their oath of office seriously. That number emphatically doesn't include the Big Cheese of the state AGs, Iowa's Tom Miller, the man who masterminded the "settlement" and the man who apparently gave Schneiderman the boot.

Miller meanwhile is feeling aggrieved. His longtime sidekick, Assistant AG Patrick Madigan, whined:

We’ve been accused of being in bed with the banks. To say that to a group of people who have spent the last seven to 10 years fighting mortgage abuses day in and day out is an insult of the highest order. It's just unreal.

Yeah, Pat, an insult of the highest order. Just unreal. I expect you and Tom were really insulted by the unreal Taibblog post Matt Taibbi wrote back in April, titled "Best Way to Raise Campaign Money? Investigate Banks," which began:

A hilarious report has come out courtesy of the National Institute of Money in State Politics, showing that Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller – who is coordinating the investigation into the banks’ improper mortgage dealings – increased his campaign contributions from the finance sector this year by a factor of 88! He has raised $261,445 from finance, insurance and real estate contributors since he announced that he was going to be coordinating the investigation into improper foreclosure practices. That is 88 times as much as they gave him not over last year, but over the previous decade.

This is about as perfect an example of how American politics works as you’ll ever see. This foreclosure issue is a monstrous story that is somehow escaping national headlines; essentially, all of the largest banks in the country have been engaged in an ongoing fraud and tax evasion scheme that among other things has resulted in many hundreds of billions in investor losses, and hundreds of thousands of improper foreclosures. Last week, the 14 largest mortgage lenders a group that includes bailout all-stars like Citigroup, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, managed to negotiate a settlement with the federal government that will mandate some financial relief to homeowners who have been victims of improper foreclosure practices. It’s unclear yet exactly what damages and fines will be involved in the federal settlement, or how many homeowners will be affected. But certainly there are some who believe the federal settlement was a political end-run around the states’ efforts to extract their own deal from the banks.

"If the banks had to pay what they actually owed" from their mortgage-related malfeasances, Taibbi wrote, "they would probably all go out of business."

In a dandy post on Tom 'n' Pat's Iowhining, Marcy Wheeler takes a closer look at this "fighting mortgage abuses" that, according to Pat, he and Tom have been doing day in and day out these past seven to ten years. (Doesn't that three-year spread leave a lot of days-to-days unaccounted for?) Notes Marcy:

As in the settlement they signed onto with Countrywide in 2008? The one that–according to NV Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, Bank of America has basically blown off?

In her filing, Ms. Masto contends that Bank of America raised interest rates on troubled borrowers when modifying their loans even though the bank had promised in the settlement to lower them. The bank also failed to provide loan modifications to qualified homeowners as required under the deal, improperly proceeded with foreclosures even as borrowers’ modification requests were pending and failed to meet the settlement’s 60-day requirement on granting new loan terms, instead allowing months and in some cases more than a year to go by with no resolution, the filing says.

The complaint says such practices violated an agreement Bank of America reached in the fall of 2008 with several states and later, in 2009, with Nevada, to settle lawsuits that accused its Countrywide unit of predatory lending. As the credit crisis grew, the settlement was heralded as a victory by state offices eager to help keep troubled borrowers in their homes and reduce their costs. Bank of America set aside $8.4 billion in the deal and agreed to help 400,000 troubled borrowers with loan modifications and other financial relief, such as lowering interest rates on mortgages.

(See DDay for more on Masto’s complaint.)

Perhaps Madigan doesn’t understand this. But pointing to a settlement that, in retrospect, appears to have largely been a PR stunt as proof that you’re not in bed with the banks sort of proves the point that you are.

Back in April, Matt Taibbi ventured that the flow of cash from people in and around the mortgage industry to Tom Miller was "just something to keep an eye on," adding, "It would be interesting to see a similar analysis on the money these same characters have thrown at the Obama administration in the last year."

Interesting indeed -- I wonder if anyone ever did such an analysis. As he wrote of the bonanza Tom Miller created for himself by making noises about investigating the banks: "This is about as perfect an example of how American politics works as you’ll ever see."

At least for today, however, on the matter of the AT&T takeover of T-Mobile, the Justice Department has taken a different path. It's something.

#

Are the Congressmembers still boosting AT&T's T-Mobile takeover just oblivious, or are they in on the fix?

The media-reform advocacy group Free Press has written a letter urging congressmembers who signed a letter to the FCC urging approval of AT&T's takeover of T-Mobile to reconsider based on the known facts.


"Every AT&T argument for the public benefits of this merger has now been proven wrong.

"But that doesn't seem to matter in a town where AT&T writes more checks to federal candidates than any other company (it has spent $200 million on lobbyists and campaign contributions over the years) and gives more than $60 million a year to charity groups and not-for-profits, many of whom have lent their name to letters in support of the merger.

"Should the DoJ and FCC approve this deal, we'll have no clearer example of industry capture in Washington -- where well-financed fictions trump the facts."

-- from a post by Timothy Karr, campaign director
of the media-reform advocacy group Free Press

by Ken

Like a lot of people I suspect, even people at our end of the political spectrum, I didn't originally have strong feelings about AT&T's acquisition of its wireless rival T-Mobile. I accepted the argument that the question wasn't whether it was a good idea to combine the two companies. Rather the question, since apparently T-Mobile was determined to be acquired (or, rather, its parent company, Deutsche Telekom was determined to rid itself of its U.S. operation), was whether there was a better alternative. And since there didn't seem to be anyone negotiating besides AT&T, with its $39 billion offer, the answer seemed to be that there really wasn't any alternative, and at least AT&T had some advantages -- like its status as a union shop and its record of giving generously to a range worthwhile causes.

Now, however, I'm afraid even those of us who pay little attention to such matters know way too much about this deal to feel other than distressed about the prospects of the deal going through.

When I wrote Monday about the embarrassing-for-AT&T revelations contained in the mysteriously leaked letter written by someone on its legal team, what intrigued me most was the suggestion from our friend (and go-to guy on telecom matters) Tim Karr that in Washington the facts-of-the-matter can matter less than what it's convenient for public people to pretend to believe.

As I wrote Monday, drawing heavily on Karl Bode's Broadband post "Leaked AT&T Letter Demolishes Case for T-Mobile Merger," even before the leaked lawyer letter, there was no longer any factual basis for accepting any of the claims AT&T has made that made it sound like its acquisition of T-Mobile was a patriotic act.

"Job creation"? Not a chance. The current projection is that by the time AT&T finishes "consolidating" the two companies, 20,000 jobs will have been lost. Some progressives, along with the Communications Workers of America (CWA), have been hornswoggled by the fact that AT&T has unions while T-Mobile doesn't, which in theory suggests a plus for union representation. However, even assuming that the ex-T-Mobile employees who survive the consolidation bloodbath are unionized, the 20,000 workers who lose their jobs sure won't be.

"Increased investment in communications infrastructure"? Hahaha!. Doesn't seem likely when AT&T is bragging to investors about how much less it's going to have to spend once another pesky competitor is eliminated. As Karl Bode wrote:

While AT&T and the CWA are busy telling regulators the deal will increase network investment by $8 billion, out of the other side of their mouth AT&T has been telling investors the deal will reduce investment by $10 billion over 6 years. Based on historical averages T-Mobile would have invested $18 billion during that time frame, which means an overall reduction in investment.

Verizon plus a combined AT&T and T-Mobile would together control 80 percent of the wireless market. Have you noticed how right-wingers always favor "competition" in theory as the theoretical backbone of their religion, capitalism, but in practice, well, not so much?

"The buildup of its LTE network coverage from 80 to 97 percent"? No way, no how, though this discredited claim is slightly trickier to debunk, because it takes multiple steps. First, there's the consideration that from a strictly competitive standpoint AT&T was going to have to do something about its inadequate-for-the future coverage anyway. Second, there's the awkward fact that T-Mobile's network adds almost nothing to AT&T's. And third, the leaked letter demonstrated what the actual cost would be of that 80-to-97-percent buildup: $3 billion. And yet here was AT&T paying $39 billion for T-Mobile, which would add hardly anything to its coverage.

To quote Karl Bode again (emphasis added):

Again, the reality appears to be that AT&T is giving Deutsche Telekom $39 billion primarily to reduce market competition. That price tag eliminates T-Mobile entirely -- and makes Sprint (and by proxy new LTE partner LightSquared and current partner Clearwire) more susceptible to failure in the face of 80% AT&T/Verizon market domination. How much do you think wireless broadband market dominance is worth to AT&T over the next decade? After all, AT&T will be first to tell you there's a wireless data "tsunami" coming, with AT&T and Verizon on the shore eagerly billing users up to $10 per gigabyte.

Now Free Press has sent a letter to 76 members of Congress who signed a June 24 letter to the FCC supporting the merger because of that famous coverage buildout, which AT&T has been claiming would bring broadband to rural areas starved for it. (T-Mobile's network is considered to be weaker in this regard than AT&T's.) The congressmembers are encouraged to reconsider their argument.

You can find the full text of the letter here. It begins:

On June 24, 2011, you were one of several representatives who signed a letter (the “June 24th Letter”) calling for increased deployment of advanced wireless broadband. That is a laudable goal, and worthy of strong support. Unfortunately, several signers were misled at the time by AT&T’s false claim that it needed to acquire T-Mobile to provide wireless broadband coverage for 97 percent of the country’s population.

Since you signed this letter, new facts that contradict AT&T’s claims about this acquisition’s benefits have surfaced. Last week the unintentional public posting of documents AT&T had filed with the Federal Communications Commission and subsequent press reports revealed that the company could meet its rural-deployment promise for just $3.8 billion -- one-tenth of the cost of the T-Mobile acquisition. The public now has the truth: AT&T can deliver 97 percent mobile broadband coverage without sacrificing an estimated 20,000 American jobs and without reducing investment in the U.S. wireless market by more than $10 billion.

And the letter concludes:

For these reasons, we ask that you review the new data that emerged last week. We hope you will revise your recommendation to the Department of Justice and the FCC, and encourage those agencies to use the available data to weigh the impact this merger will have on jobs, innovation and investment.

We hope you will scrutinize all of the facts closely —--including the dramatically lower cost for AT&T to build its own advanced network rather than pursue this harmful, horizontal merger -- in considering whether this merger will truly serve the interests of the American people.

Let me quote again the end of the post of Tim's from which I've (re)quoted above:

"The only question that remains is whether regulators feel politically safe to sign off on a bogus deal, which sacrifices so many American jobs, just so AT&T can pad its profits and tighten its grip on the wireless marketplace."

The first test is the congressmembers' response to Free Press's letter. I'm not holding my breath.

#

AT&T + T-Mobile = "Industry capture in Washington -- where well-financed fictions trump the facts" (Timothy Karr)

All the major players in Washington know that AT&T is fabricating its case for the T-Mobile takeover. But it seems that if you spread enough cash around, people are willing to pretend they buy your fairy tales.

by Ken

It's a favorite plot device on TV legal shows, where a smoking-gun-type incriminating document turns up buried -- maybe accidentally, maybe not -- in mountains of discovery materials from the evil opposition. So it's always fun when it happens in real life, though maybe not so much fun just now for AT&T, still engaged in its campaign to secure approval for its acquisition of mobile-phone rival T-Mobile.

If you haven't heard about the mysteriously appeared and disappeared letter: From somewhere inside the AT&T legal team a letter was posted -- briefly -- on the FCC website that confirms, and then some, what most everyone had worked out: that AT&T's planned acquisition of T-Mobile had nothing to do with job creation (the current estimate is that the combination will cost a minimum of 20,000 jobs; David Saldana goes over the jobs math in an Other Words post today, "AT&T Takeover of T-Mobile Won't Create New Jobs") and also nothing to do with the claim the company has fallen back on that it needs T-Mobile to increase its wireless capacity, thereby making it sound like a "building America" infrastructure upgrade.

However as Karl Bode pointed out in his Friday Broadband post "Leaked AT&T Letter Demolishes Case for T-Mobile Merger"), while AT&T indeed has serious network coverage deficiencies that will have to be addressed for its future competitiveness, T-Mobile brings almost nothing to the table on this front, since its network largely duplicates AT&T except in weaker form. And contrary to AT&T's claim of increased investment resulting from the combination, industry watchers have already demonstrated from its own networks that by its own claims there will be a substantial reduction in investment over what the two separate companies would have invested together.

The letter, says Bode,

proves AT&T's claim they need T-Mobile to improve LTE coverage from 80-97% simply isn't true. That's a huge problem for AT&T, since nearly every politician and non-profit that has voiced support for the merger did so based largely on this buildout promise.

Bode tells us that the letter, contrary to AT&T's damage-control team's claims, actually contains new information, and it's really bad for the company: "The letter pegs the cost of bringing AT&T's LTE coverage from 80% to 97% at $3.8 billion -- quite a cost difference from the $39 billion price tag on the T-Mobile deal."

So what is the AT&T/T-Mobile deal about? Says Bode:

[T]he reality appears to be that AT&T is giving Deutsche Telekom $39 billion primarily to reduce market competition. That price tag eliminates T-Mobile entirely -- and makes Sprint (and by proxy new LTE partner LightSquared and current partner Clearwire) more susceptible to failure in the face of 80% AT&T/Verizon market domination. How much do you think wireless broadband market dominance is worth to AT&T over the next decade? After all, AT&T will be first to tell you there's a wireless data "tsunami" coming, with AT&T and Verizon on the shore eagerly billing users up to $10 per gigabyte.

Our friend Tim Karr of Free Press, our go-to guy on telecom matters, has neatly distilled the essence of the deal:

Guess what?

AT&T's plan to take over T-Mobile is really about gouging customers and destroying a competitor. My colleagues and I at Free Press have been saying this from the beginning, but it's good to have one of AT&T's own lawyers confirm it via a leaked letter.

Still, the merger is about more than higher prices and fewer choices: An estimated 20,000 American workers will lose their jobs as the "synergies" of the deal take effect.

Every AT&T argument for the public benefits of this merger has now been proven wrong.

But that doesn't seem to matter in a town where AT&T writes more checks to federal candidates than any other company (it has spent $200 million on lobbyists and campaign contributions over the years) and gives more than $60 million a year to charity groups and not-for-profits, many of whom have lent their name to letters in support of the merger.

Should the DoJ and FCC approve this deal, we'll have no clearer example of industry capture in Washington -- where well-financed fictions trump the facts.

The only question that remains is whether regulators feel politically safe to sign off on a bogus deal, which sacrifices so many American jobs, just so AT&T can pad its profits and tighten its grip on the wireless marketplace.

#

"Only make believe" the Obama FCC has "saved" Net Neutrality -- by (shhh!) throwing it to the telecom wolves

"If you like to make believe . . .": Danny Eastwood (Ravenal) and Lisa Kulchycki (Magnolia) eventually get around to singing Oscar Hammerstein II and Jerome Kern's "Only Make Believe" in Act I of Show Boat (Scarborough, Ont., April 1989).

RAVENAL: Are you a player?
MAGNOLIA: You mean like on the piano? Yes, I play a little.
RAVENAL: Was that you I heard just now playing the piano?
MAGNOLIA: Yes, it was.
RAVENAL: What a pity!
MAGNOLIA: What'd you say, mister?
RAVENAL: Oh, when I asked if you were a player, I meant are you an actress?
MAGNOLIA: Oh no, but I'd give anything if I could be.
RAVENAL: Why?
MAGNOLIA: Why? Because you can make believe so many wonderful things that never happen in real life.
RAVENAL: Oh, but wonderful things do happen in real life.

by Ken

This mode of magical thinking is, I assume, what the FCC's Chairman Julius (thought of at the time, you'll recall, as one of Obama's good appointments!) had in mind when he made believe yesterday that he had "saved" Net Neutrality by throwing it to the wolves of the telecom giants. For the time being, at least, regular land-line ISPs won't be able to who gets access to which online content and for now much -- though I wouldn't hold my breath about even that. However, those who connect wirelessly, clearly the direction in which online access is increasingly headed, will now be at the mercy of their providers.

Ah, so Net Neutrality is saved! For those with short memories, candidate Barack Obama was unequivocally committed to maintaining Net Neutrality. Now, apparently, he's committed to making believe we're maintaining it.

And consumers of the infotainment noozmedia would have little reason to believe otherwise. The infonoozers have been hawking the story of the miracle of the Compromise Package That Saved Net Neutrality, as pieced together by Chairman Julius, with the lobbyist-angels of the telecom giants whispering the terms in his ear. Of course we're already hearing from righteous right-wingers denouncing this shameful power grab by the FCC, presumably outraged that the Obama-style socialists are daring to interfere even this much in the raking in of consumers' Net-connection bucks.

The difference between the two modes of connection, you see, is that wireless connectors are using limited over-the-air bandwidth, and the people who've wangled control of that precious bandwidth have o be allowed to gouge us to the limit of their gouging capacity, which appears to be unlimited. (Certainly not by the FCC.)

Here's our our friends at Free Press, my go-to source for Net Neutrality matters, summed up yesterday's action:

Free Press: FCC Net Neutrality Order a ‘Squandered Opportunity’

Date: December 21, 2010

WASHINGTON -- By a 3-2 vote Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission approved new rules intended to prevent Internet providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from acting as gatekeepers on the Web. The rules, however, heavily favor the industry they are intended to regulate, and leave consumers with minimal protections. Democratic Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Michael Copps voted with Chairman Julius Genachowski, while Republican Commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker voted against.

Free Press Managing Director Craig Aaron made the following statement:

“We are deeply disappointed that the chairman chose to ignore the overwhelming public support for real Net Neutrality, instead moving forward with industry-written rules that will for the first time in Internet history allow discrimination online. This proceeding was a squandered opportunity to enact clear, meaningful rules to safeguard the Internet’s level playing field and protect consumers.

“The new rules are riddled with loopholes, evidence that the chairman sought approval from AT&T instead of listening to the millions of Americans who asked for real Net Neutrality. These rules don't do enough to stop the phone and cable companies from dividing the Internet into fast and slow lanes, and they fail to protect wireless users from discrimination. No longer can you get to the same Internet via your mobile device as you can via your laptop. The rules pave the way for AT&T to block your access to third-party applications and to require you to use its own preferred applications.

“Chairman Genachowski ignored President Obama's promise to the American people to take a 'back seat to no one' on Net Neutrality. He ignored the 2 million voices who petitioned for real Net Neutrality and the hundreds who came to public hearings across the country to ask him to protect the open Internet. And he ignored policymakers who urged him to protect consumers and maintain the Internet as a platform for innovation. It’s unfortunate that the only voices he chose to listen to were those coming from the very industry he’s charged with overseeing."

#

Did You Get Into The Big AT&T Blue Dog Bash In Denver To Celebrate Retroactive Immunity For Telecom Executives?

Although one Blue Dog, Pennsylvania's anti-choice, homophobic reactionary Neocon, Chris Carney, says he won't be going to the historic Democratic Convention in Denver that will be nominating Barack Obama-- a man whose policies Carney will spend the rest of his wretched political life fighting-- many other Blue Dogs have indeed shown up in Denver. Sunday night progressive bloggers, Jane Hamsher, John Amato, Glenn Greenwald and Matt Stoller tried to infiltrate the huge bash AT&T threw for Blue Dogs who had taken their bribes and helped Bush push through retroactive immunity for criminal executives from AT&T and other telecom companies who had illegally spied on American citizens. Glenn has a description and video of the bloggers being stonewalled and harassed by the reactionary forces within the Democratic Party and their paid muscle.

Amazingly, not a single one of the 25-30 people we tried to interview would speak to us about who they were, how they got invited, what the party's purpose was, why they were attending, etc. One attendee said he was with an "energy company," and the other confessed she was affiliated with a "trade association," but that was the full extent of their willingness to describe themselves or this event. It was as though they knew they're part of a filthy and deeply corrupt process and were ashamed of -- or at least eager to conceal -- their involvement in it. After just a few minutes, the private security teams demanded that we leave, and when we refused and continued to stand in front trying to interview the reticent attendees, the Denver Police forced us to move further and further away until finally we were unable to approach any more of the arriving guests.

It was really the perfect symbol for how the Beltway political system functions-- those who dictate the nation's laws (the largest corporations and their lobbyists) cavorting in total secrecy with those who are elected to write those laws (members of Congress), while completely prohibiting the public from having any access to and knowledge of-- let alone involvement in-- what they are doing. And all of this was arranged by the corporation-- AT&T-- that is paying for a substantial part of the Democratic National Convention with millions upon millions of dollars, which just received an extraordinary gift of retroactive amnesty from the Congress controlled by that party, whose logo is splattered throughout the city wherever the DNC logo appears-- virtually attached to it-- all taking place next to the stadium where the Democratic presidential nominee, claiming he will cleanse the Beltway of corporate and lobbying influences, will accept the nomination on Thursday night.

AT&T has also given more money to federal elected officials than any other single company in America, $39,502,961 since 1990, most of it to Republicans. So far this year they have "donated" $3,084,061, 59% of it to Republicans. Mostly of the money went to PACs.

Obviously the #1 recipient of AT&T bribes this year has been McCain, but leaving presidential candidates out of this, the biggest targets of their "generosity" in Congress were that fount of corruption, Democratic Party boss Rahm Emanuel (D-IL- $48,950) and "Mr. Retroactive Immunity," Jay Rockefeller (D-WV- $22,000). But right up there with some of the most odious far right Republican stooges, like Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL- $11,000) and Michael McCaul (R-TX- $10,500) were the Blue Dog scum and fellow travelers who joined the GOP to pass the FISA bill giving immunity from prosecution to the AT&T executives:

Brad Ellsworth (D-IN- $15,000)
Joe Baca (D-CA- $10,000)
Marion Berry (D- AR- $10,000)
Leonard Boswell (D-IA- $10,000)
Lincoln Davis (D-TN- $10,000)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN- $10,000)
Jim Matheson (D-UT- $10,000)
Dennis Moore (D-KS- $10,000)
Zach Space (D-OH- $10,000)
John Tanner (D-TN- $10,000)
Baron Hill (D-IN- $9,750)
Mike Ross (D-AR- $9,250)
Melissa Bean (D-IL- $9,000)
Allen Boyd (D-FL- $9,000)
Charlie Melancon (D-LA- $9,000)
David Scott (D-GA- $9,000)
Heath Shuler (D-NC- $8,450)
John Barrow (D-GA- $8,000)
Artur Davis (D-AL- $8,000)
Jim Cooper (D-TN- $7,500)
Dan Boren (D-OK- $6,500)
Dennis Cardoza (D-CA- $6,000)
Jim Costa (D-CA- $6,000)
Chet Edwards (D-TX- $5,000)
Dan Lipinksi (D-IL- $5,000)
Edolphus Towns (D-NY- $5,000)
Nick Lampson (D-TX- $4,500)
Adam Schiff (D-CA- $3,000)

AT&T was also able to funnel money to Blue Dogs through the Blue Dog PAC which then laundered it out to individual Blue Dogs in $10,000 increments through PACs belonging to members like Melissa Bean, Allen Boyd, Adam Schiff, Marion Berry, Jane Harman, Leonard Boswell, John Tanner, Mike Ross, Earl Pomeroy, David Scott, Dennis Cardoza, etc.

Our blogger colleagues were unable to ascertain which Blue Dogs were availing themselves of AT&T's hospitality (which included a performance by Scottish singer KT Tunstall) in Denver before they were chased away from the entrance. This morning I couldn't get a single congressional office of a single Blue Dog to admit that he or she attended the AT&T Blue Dog celebration in Denver but I did hear from an authoritative source that Allen Boyd, Melissa Bean and John Tanner were at the event. Nor was I able to ascertain whether or not Carney-- who's entire re-election campaign is an outreach to Republicans-- will be in St Paul for the Republican convention.

Since Jane, John, Matt and Glenn missed the party, this is for them-- and for any DWT readers in Denver who didn't get into the AT&T Blue Dog bash Sunday night:

Is Corruption In Afghanistan Somehow Worse Than Corruption in Washington, DC?

Last week Bush signed a heinous piece of legislation that gives the Executive Branch unimaginable powers to spy on American citizens. It's straight out of Orwell's 1984, Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia, except it happened in the United States and enough Democrats joined the Republican Party to pass something that would make every patriotic American puke. One giant step towards fascism.

Friday night Air America's Peter B. Collins asked me to explain why so many members of Congress voted for this travesty. The simple, one-word explanation I told his audience: Bribery. Rampant, uncontrollable, unregulated corruption has so inundated our political system that the public takes for granted that most of our political class-- every single Republican without exception plus the whole Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- is unafraid to utterly sell out the Constitution and our liberties for a handful of cash.

The management of the big telecoms were frantic to make sure Congress acceded to Bush's vow to grant them-- the management of the big telecoms-- retroactive immunity for the laws they clearly broke in massive spying on the American public. So far this year they have laid out at least $6,249,940 in "donations" to political campaigns to make sure that happened. The two most guilty telecoms, AT&T and Verizon, handed out $3,017,654 and $1,443,344 (respectively) alone. And who was the biggest recipient? John McCain, of course, the most corrupt politician in America. They gave him $365,955. Obama symbolically voted against retroactive immunity in a doomed amendment by Chris Dodd but once that lost, he went on to vote for the bill (and feel dandy about the $220,789 in donations his "clean" campaign took in. So how, exactly, does his campaign differ from the criminal lobbyist filth that makes up John McCain For President?

But forget the presidential candidates for a moment. Who were the biggest recipients of bribes from the telecoms-- and no sane person could define these pay-offs as anything but bribes-- this year? First and foremost, the man who guided the bill through the Senate and made sure there were enough Democrats joining the GOP to guarantee passage and guarantee that Dodd's amendment would fail: Jay Rockefeller (D-WV-$51,500) and the man who guided the bill through the House and made sure there were enough Democrats joining the GOP to guarantee passage: Rahm Emanuel (D-IL-$49,950). After that came the regular suspects, a veritable hall of shame of corrupt political hacks from both parties who are always willing to sell their votes to corporate interests regardless of the detrimental effects it has on the constituents who theoretically employ them (but don't pay close attention). The worst of the worst (and keep in mind this is just this year's haul):

Ted Stevens (R-AK-$41,400)
Rick Boucher (D-VA-$36,700)
Terry Lee (R-NE-$36,650)
Susan Collins (R-ME-$35,850)
Greg Walden (R-OR-$34,000)
Mark Pryor (D-AR-$32,350)
Cliff Stearns (R-FL-$31,000)
Eric Cantor (R-VA-$30,200)
Baron Hill (D-IN-$28,900)
Max Baucus (D-MT-$28,000)
Gordon Smith (R-OR-$27,750)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC-$26,700)
Roger Wicker (R-MS-$26,600)
Chris Cannon (R-UT-$26,250)
Nathan Deal (R-GA-$25,000)
John Sununu (R-NH-$24,600)
Zach Space (D-OH-$22,000)
Ed Whitfield (R-KY-$21,500)
Bart Stupak (D-MI-$20,800)
Leonard Boswell (D-IA-$20,750)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY-$20,250)

All of these corrupt politicians accepted large donations from the telecoms and then voted, in an obviously unconstitutional manner to grant retroactive immunity to the very people who authorized the pay-offs. Why am I mentioning this today. Well, the L.A. times has a story about Admiral Mike Mullen bitching about corruption in Afghanistan. I spent a couple years when I was younger living in Asia, quite a bit of it in Afghanistan. It is easy to define their social system as corrupt. I drove from Turkey to India and one word never changed: baksheesh. It could be as benign as a tip or as insidious as the police bribe I had to pay to get out of prison when the police found 50 kilos of the finest Mazar-i-Sharif hashish in my van. It's not nearly as insidious as Senator Susan Collins accepting $35,850 from the big telecoms in return for voting to let their chief executives off the hook for spying on the American people without lawful warrants. Many telecom companies were asked and told the Bush Regime their request was illegal and refused to go along. They didn't participate in the gigantic pay-offs to politicians like Susan Collins this year.

Afghan police, Mullen said, "have a history of corruption, and they've had challenges with this in every local area and district. Up until now, they haven't been trained very well, and so we start with a significant deficit, and it's going to take some time to catch up."

Mullen is known for straight talk.

I'll believe that when he has some straight talk with John McCain (R-AZ-$365,955), Barack Obama (D-IL-$220,789), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV-$51,500), Rahm Emanuel (D-IL-$49,950), and Ted Stevens (R-AK-$41,400).

IS THERE A SECERT CONSPIRACY AT THE HEART OF THE TWO PARTIES' ESTABLISHMENT? WELL... IT'S NOT THAT SECRET

One of the things I like about long plane rides-- one of the only things these days in fact-- is that I get a chance to read without interruption. I pretty much finished David Sirota's new book, The Uprising, and found plenty of inspiration I want to share. Let me start with this line from a chapter explaining the Minutemen and other putatively right-wing militias:

"This ideology is partly nationalist and vaguely pitchfork populist; mostly libertarian but also a bit fascist; more comfortable with equal-opportunity xenophobia than targeted racism (though there is some of that); and, above all else, grounded in a belief that both parties' Establishment secretly collude with moneyed interests in a treasonous ploy to oppress regular folks and undermine American sovereignty.

The emphasis is mine and I should point out that David wrote this before the FISA retroactive immunity conundrum proved that this has a lot more to do with cold hard facts than with conspiracy theories about the Trilateral Commission, the NAFTA Superhighway, an al Qaeda mosque on the California side of the Mexican border or other bits and pieces of militia conventional wisdom. In fact, the only word that Sirota should remove from his sentence is "secretly." And that's because the collusion between the 2 heinous parties' Establishment and the corporate powers is anything but secret. Not that the Infotainment branch of U.S. corporate power trumpets it... but it's all out there in plain view.

Let's use the FISA vote as an example of how this works. First take a look at the roll call. Only one Republican voted against retroactive immunity-- 188 voted for it, not enough to pass it; not even close. But then Democratic House caucus leaders Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer come riding to the rescue with 103 other Democrats. 128 Democrats voted no, but their no votes were swamped by the ad hoc coalition of bribed Republicans and the bought-off Hoyer-Emanuel caucus of Blue Dogs, Dixiecrats, right-of-center Democratic cowards who still think they are only electorally safe if they vote for Bush's thoroughly discredited policies. So far this cycle-- so since they poured $7.6 million into congressional races in 2006 (62% of it to Republicans)-- the Telcom companies, who were so desperate for Congress to pass retroactive immunity, have already ante-ed up $5,774,902 (only 55% for Republicans).

And who got the big bucks? Leave aside the presidential candidates for a moment, each of whom got massive "contributions," and look who got the most:
Jay Rockefeller, the chief retroactive immunity watercarrier in the Senate ($51,500)
Rahm Emanuel, who delivered scores of House Democrats and served as the middle man for telecom bribes to Democratic rank-and-file (49,950)

These two sleaze bags, actually got more than any Republicans! And the other House Democrats among the top 20 recipients of Telecom bribe money were-- surprise, surprise-- mostly right-wing, pro-corporate Democrats who routinely carry water for the Telecoms and voted with Bush, Hoyer and Emanuel (and against the majority of Democrats) to grant retroactive immunity to the same Telecoms who have been bribing them! In fact, only 3 (powerful committee chairs Ed Markey, John Dingell and Charles Rangel) voted against Telecom Immunity. The Democrats who took the most, some as much as the Republicans took, and then joined with the Republicans to pass this monstrosity were:

Rick Boucher (VA)- $36,700
Baron Hill (IN)- $26,900
Zach Space (OH)- $22,000
John Barrow (GA)- $19,500
Marion Berry (AR)- $19,500
Mike Ross (AR)- $18,000
John Tanner (TN)- $17,500

It's as clear as day. The Telecoms didn't want their executives going on trial and being forced to testify about the Bush-Cheney secret spying on Americans long before 9/11 so they bribed-- called "contributed" in a definition conveniently set by the recipients themselves-- the GOP and enough sleazy Democrats to prevent the pursuit of justice.

And, although the Telecoms clearly favor John McCain above any other member of the Senate or House ($845,337 for his career and $356,145 this year), remember that they have also given a not insubstantial $205,795 to Barack Obama (who has said he will fight retroactive immunity but has shown no signs whatsoever that he will expend even a dime's worth of political capital on the cause, at least not while he's working out something that apparently is more important to him: his evangelical strategy.)

The political party Establishments have so jiggered the system that none of these conspirators face seven a modicum of accountability inside their gerrymandered districts. Except one: John Barrow is being challenged by state Senator Regina Thomas. He is one of Bush's key backers on retroactive immunity and is one of the biggest recipients of bribes from the Telecoms. Regina adamantly opposes retroactive immunity. They face off in a Davis vs Goliath primary on July 15. It isn't too late to help David vanquish the one vulnerable Blue Dog in the entire Congress. The names are in alphabetical order, so Regina Thomas is towards the bottom of this list of our candidates.

UPDATE: ANOTHER WAY TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE BELTWAY CONSPIRACY

Blue America just launched a call tool that will help you let your senators know how you feel about retroactive immunity. They do, after all, work for you and will at least pretend to be interested in your opinion. I guess they decided to wait to further shred the Constitution until after the 4th of July holiday and they are now prepared to put into concrete exactly what Bush has been asking for: two legal systems, one for rich corporate executives who pay huge bribes to politicians of both parties, and one for the rest of us. Christy has the details at FDL-- or just click the magic button below.

HOUSE BROKEN BLUE DOGS LOOKING FOR A CAT'S PAW IN THE SENATE

In the last electoral cycle, the most corrupt of the right-wing Democrats in the House, the Blue Dogs (widely derided as "the Republican wing of the Democratic Party"), only endorsed one Democrat running for the Senate, Harold Ford of Memphis. Ford's was the only high profile race for a Senate seat that the Democrats lost in 2006. And it was an open seat, considered far far easier to take than to beat a sitting incumbent. Populist and progressive Democrats retired Republicans in every other competitive race, ending the miserable political careers of Rick Santorum (R-PA), George Allen (R-VA), Conrad Burns (R-MT), Mike DeWine (R-OH), James Talent (R-MO), the more honorable career of Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) and winning the other heavily contested open seat (in Maryland).

But yesterday's Hill reports that the Blue Dogs, whose bank account is filled with massive corporate bribes from the special interests they are always shilling for, plan to stick their snouts into some Senate races. The reason the Blue Dogs are so well-heeled is because they were among the biggest non-Republican recipients of bribes-- so called "campaign contributions"-- from the telecoms and they forced the retroactive immunity onto the House agenda in return. All 22 Democrats who signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi demanding retroactive immunity are Blue Dogs:
• Marion Berry (AR)- $19,550
• John Barrow (GA)- $19,500
• Leonard Boswell (IA)- $13,750
• Mike Ross (AR)- $18,000
• Earl Pomeroy (ND)- $8,000
• Bud Cramer (AL)- $6,000
• Melissa Bean (IL)- $12,500
• Allen Boyd (FL)- $12,000
• Joe Baca (CA)- $15,100
• John Tanner (TN)- $17,500
• Jim Matheson (UT)- $15,000
• Lincoln Davis (TN)- $15,500
• Brad Ellsworth (IN)- $15,500
• Charlie Melancon (LA)- $13,000
• Dennis Moore (KS)- $14,000
• Zack Space (OH)- $22,000
• Dan Boren (OK)- $9,500
• Chris Carney (PA)- $5,000
• Jim Cooper (TN)- $8,000
• Tim Holden (PA)- $5,500
• Nick Lampson (TX)- $7,500
• Heath Shuler (NC)- $13,200

The bolded names were the most rabid, who refused to go along with Hoyer's promise that he would work out a backroom deal-- which he did-- giving the Telecom campaign contributors immunity. They were the only Democrats to vote with the Republicans for retroactive immunity the first go-round. And the dollar amounts are how much the telecoms have paid off each of these disgraceful, unethical-- if not criminal-- members of Congress. By the way, the biggest telecom payday of all went to Democratic arm twister and slimebucket Rahm Emanuel who took in a hefty $49,950 and who helped Hoyer deliver the votes that were needed to pass retroactive immunity. All the bribe amounts from telecoms to members of Congress are available at OpenSecrets.

The first race the Blue Dogs are talking about jumping in to is in Virginia, a sure win, in which Mark Warner is widely expected to bury Jim Gilmore, a right wing kook. “We’re interested in getting some like-minded people in the Senate,” said John Tanner, a reactionary Democrat who chairs the Blue Dog PAC. Evan Bayh, who isn't facing re-election this year, immediately started jumping up and down, wagging his tail and barking loudly: “Over the years there have been efforts to establish centrist … groups here,” Bayh said. “It’s never been as formal or as lasting as the Blue Dogs, but obviously the more like-minded members that we have-- centrists, pragmatists-- the greater the potential for something like that to occur with me. I’m not interested in joining an organization just to join something, but if there’s actually a potential for practical results? Absolutely. We need more of that around here.”

The Blue Dog PAC primarily raises money for members of the Blue Dog caucus. This year they have also given money to a number of like-minded arch-conservative Democrats who aren't officially members:

Don Cazayoux (LA)- $5,000
Travis Childers (MS)- $20,000
candidate Jill Derby (NV)- $5,000
candidate Christine Jennings (FL)- $5,000

HOW MUCH DO YOU HAVE TO PAY A CONGRESSMAN TO SELL OUT THE COUNTRY?

It's not just Republicans who take bribes for their votes

Would it surprise you to know that Democrats who abandoned their party and its values to join Hoyer and Emanuel across the aisle on the FISA vote are the ones who got the biggest bribes from the telecoms? It shouldn't-- and they did. A day or two ago I tried showing the correlation between Hoyer's 7-figure PAC distribution operation-- funneling corporate bribes to Democratic caucus members-- and who willing the recipients were to stab their constituents in the back for Hoyer's special interests pals. Huge correlation.

Today we have a report from MAPLight.org that the telecoms paid well for Dems willing to sell their votes and betray the Constitution. The headline: "HOUSE DEMS WHO CHANGED THEIR VOTE TO SUPPORT FISA BILL, GIVING IMMUNITY TO TELCOS, RECEIVED, ON AVERAGE, $8,359 IN PAC CONTRIBUTIONS FROM VERIZON, AT&T, AND SPRINT." Overall, the biggest Democratic bribes (Republicans got even more, but who doesn't expect them to take bribes; that's why they're in politics), over $10,000 each, went to 31 mostly conservative Democrats and Blue Dogs, all corrupt notorious bribes takers:

Leonard Boswell (IA)- $10,000
Adam Schiff (CA)- $11,000
Dennis Cardoza (CA)- $11,000
Rubén Hinojosa (TX)- $12,000
Al Green (TX)- $12,000
Mike Ross (AR) $12,500
Jim Costa (CA)- $12,500
Bart Gordon (TN)- $13,500
John Barrow (GA)- $13,500- always more ready to sell out his constituents than almost anyone
Ron Kind (WI)- $14,000
John Tanner (TN)- $14,300
GK Butterfield (NC)- $14,800
Gary Ackerman (NY)- $15,000
Bart Stupak (MI)- $15,500
Henry Cuellar (TX)- $15,500
Charles Melancon (LA)- $16,000
Bernie Thompson (MS)- $18,500
John Spratt (SC)- $18,500
Dennis Moore (KS)- $18,500
Sanford Bishop (GA)- $19,000
Eliot Engel (NY) $21,500
Joe Baca (CA)- $22,100
Chet Edwards (TX)- $22,500
Melissa Bean (IL)- $24,000
Nancy Pelosi (CA)- $24,500
Joseph Crowley (NY)- $24,500
Gregory Meeks (NY)- $26,000
Rick Boucher (VA)- $27,500
Rahm Emanuel (IL)- $28,000
Steny Hoyer (MD)- $29,000
Jim Clyburn (SC)- $29,500

If you think that AT&T, Sprint and Verizon shelled out all this dough because of a burst of coincidental fervor, you'll probably wasting your time reading DWT and you should go find Rush Limbaugh's blog or the Drudge Report. And what about the 94 Democrats who changed their votes between the March 14 and June 20? Why did they change their votes. It may be hard to ascribe motivation but it wouldn't be odd to look at the tremendous amount of money the telecoms gave each of them and at least wonder if that was involved. What I don't understand is why they're not required to recuse themselves from these kinds of votes when they get paid off like this. Oh, wait... I do know. They make their own rules of conduct.

Last week, on June 20, the House of Representatives approved a compromise bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). The bill sets new electronic surveillance rules that effectively shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits resulting from the government’s warrantless eavesdropping on phone calls and viewing of emails of private citizens in the U.S. Approximately 40 lawsuits have been filed with potential damages totaling in the billions of dollars.

On March 14 of this year the House passed an amendment that rejected retroactive immunity for phone carriers who helped the National Security Agency carry out the illegal wiretapping program without proper warrants. Ninety-four House Democrats voted in favor of this measure--rejecting immunity--on March 14, then ‘changed’ to vote in favor of the June 20 House bill--approving immunity.

...Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:

$8,359 to each Democrat who changed their position to support immunity for Telcos (94 Dems)
$4,987 to each Democrat who remained opposed to immunity for Telcos (116 Dems)

88 percent of the Dems who changed to supporting immunity (83 Dems of the 94) received PAC contributions from Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint during the last three years (Jan. 2005-Mar. 2008).

This should be illegal.

DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP IN THE HOUSE FINDS A NOT VERY UNIQUE SOLUTION ON TELECOM IMMUNITY: GIVE IN TO BUSH

Looks that way. This morning's Washington Post has a story on page 3 that starts off ominously: "House and Senate Democratic leaders are headed into talks today that they say could lead to a breakthrough on legislation to revamp domestic surveillance powers and grant phone companies some form of immunity for their role in the administration's warrantless wiretapping program after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks." Shameful!

Hoyer, always predisposed to rubber stamp as much of the Bush agenda as he can get away with rubber stamping without alerting his constituents that he isn't a real Democrat, says he polled the members and, as expected, he's come down on the side of Democratic reactionaries. The Blue Dogs are yipping in victory today and at a precedural manuever cooked up in Pelsoi's office to "allow many Democrats to vote against immunity but still make its approval all but certain."

Anticipating this move, yesterday Glenn Greenwald wrote a scathing post at Salon, House Democratic Leadership: Not Just Complicit But Also Self-destructive. As usual, Greenwald hits the nail right on the head. A couple weeks ago I was not only premature but also naive in applauding Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes' smoke and mirrors offensive against an out-of-control and highly dangerous Executive Branch. I withdraw every word of praise I had to say about him and recommend you judge this imbecile for himself, as he shows what he's worth on this barelu coherent CNN video.

No rational person who has watched Congressional Democrats since they took over Congress could possibly have expected them to do anything but what they always do: namely, whatever they're told to do by the White House. The last thing they were ever going to do was stand their ground over Americans' basic liberties and the rule of law, concepts about which they couldn't possibly care less.

...There's very little point anymore in writing about how the Congressional Democratic leadership is complicit in all of the worst Bush abuses, or about how craven they are. All of that is far too documented and established at this point to be worth spending any time discussing. They were never going to take a stand against warrantless eavesdropping or the destruction of the rule of law via telecom amnesty for one simple reason: many of them don't actually oppose those things, and many who claim to oppose them don't actually care about any of it. That's all a given.

But what is somewhat baffling in all of this is just how politically stupid and self-destructive their behavior is. If the plan all along was to give Bush everything he wanted, as it obviously was, why not just do it at the beginning? Instead, they picked a very dramatic fight that received substantial media attention. They exposed their freshmen and other swing-district members to attack ads. They caused their base and their allies to spend substantial energy and resources defending them from these attacks.

And now, after picking this fight and letting it rage for weeks, they are going to do what they always do -- just meekly give in to the President, yet again generating a tidal wave of headlines trumpeting how they bowed, surrendered, caved in, and lost to the President. They're going to cast the appearance that they engaged this battle and once again got crushed, that they ran away in fear because of the fear-mongering ads that were run and the attacks from the President. They further demoralize their own base and increase the contempt in which their base justifiably holds them (if that's possible). It's almost as though they purposely picked the path that imposed on themselves all of the political costs with no benefits.

It was great to see one of Hoyer's and Pelosi's key allies, Al Wynn fall to the wrath of an awakened electorate in MD-04. Maybe if we can repeat this 100 times they'll learn something. It would be great today to see Democrats sick of this pernicious Democratic rubber stamping of Bush-Cheney attacks on the American rule of law vote against Silvestre Reyes in today's Democratic primary where he is being opposed by political unknown Jorge Artalejo.

And why does retroactive immunity even matter? Dan Froomkin explained it thoroughly and succinctly in yesterday's Washington Post. Despite Bush's own confusion or obfuscation, the question Congress should be dealing with more seriously than Hoyer is willing to is "whether the telephone and Internet companies that for years let the government spy on their customers without a warrant should be protected from civil lawsuits alleging that they violated federal law in doing so."

Bush on Thursday argued that the telecommunications companies shouldn't be punished for patriotically carrying out legal orders. And he characterized the lawsuits as being the product of "class-action plaintiffs attorneys, [who] you know -- I don't want to try to get inside their head; I suspect they see, you know, a financial gravy train."

The Washington Post put Bush's claim in context on Friday: "Two nonprofit groups are overseeing [the five coordinated, class-action lawsuits pending against the phone companies]: the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois." The Post also noted that "substantial damages would be awarded only if courts rule that they participated in illegal surveillance affecting millions of people, not just communications involving terrorism suspects overseas."

...Terrorists everywhere had plenty of reason to believe that the United States was trying to spy on their electronic communications long before the New York Times broke the story of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program in December 2005.

What was new about the program was not some sort of tactical or technological breakthrough that the terrorists could overcome once alerted to its existence. What was new about the program was that it was arguably in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which forbids any form of domestic wiretapping without a warrant.

Whether the government was listening in on their calls legally or not was not material to the terrorists -- but it's hugely relevant to any American who cares about the rule of law.

...[T]elecoms can't possibly be worried about prospective immunity for following lawful orders -- that's already part of the agreed-upon legislation.

So are they actually telling the government: Unless you get us off the hook for billions in potential damages based on our past actions, we won't follow the law -- or we'll do so, but only kicking and screaming. That doesn't sound like a legitimate reason to help them out. In fact, it sounds like extortion.

Or are they simply saying that without retroactive immunity, they'll feel a greater need to be absolutely sure that what they're doing is legal? If that's the case, that sounds like a good thing. Any company being asked to do something by the government that they have plausible reason to believe is illegal should push back. Otherwise, there are no checks and balances at work. We call that a police state.

Another possibility, I suppose, is that the telecoms are balking about doing things that we don't even know about -- and are worried that they could be sued once we find out.

At any rate, none of these points argue for retroactive immunity.