A question of independence

By Marguerite Reardon
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
May 2, 2005 4:00 AM PDT

Charges of "astroturf" lobbying are flying in the debate over municipal broadband, as researchers rush to meet the growing demand for data and economic analysis.

The term "astroturf" typically describes the use of artificial grassroots groups that pose as citizen initiatives but get major funding from corporate interests--a strategy perfected by the telecommunications industry in its fights with regulators.

Consumer groups complain that the Bells and cable operators are using a similar tactic in their efforts to prevent cities from building broadband networks that would compete with their own.

The phone and cable companies have weighed in on this topic, lobbying state legislatures to pass new laws that would prohibit or limit these networks. They've also taken their fight to the public, through advertising in various communities. Supporters of municipal broadband say these companies are also influencing the debate by helping fund self-identified independent research groups that criticize city-owned networks.

Groups singled out for criticism include The New Millennium Research Council, The Progress & Freedom Foundation and The Heartland Institute.

"It's deceptive when the public hears the name of an organization that sounds like a respected organization with some authority behind it, when in fact it is being backed by an interested party," said Kenneth DeGraff, a policy advocate at Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports. "We look at issues purely from the consumer's perspective. Sometimes we agree with the phone companies, and sometimes we don't. But we never accept any money from an interested party."

One of the most vocal groups to speak out against municipal networks has been the New Millennium Research Council. Earlier this month, it published two studies raising "serious questions about the need for and viability" of the recent business plan for Philadelphia to build its own wireless broadband network.

In February, the NMRC also published a scathing report called "Not in the Public Interest, The Myth of Municipal Wi-Fi Networks," which cited several examples of municipal broadband deployments that had failed.

NMRC, which describes itself as an independent research network that pools policy experts, is owned and operated by a large public-relations and lobby firm called Issue Dynamics, based in Washington, D.C. All four of the Baby Bell phone companies--BellSouth, SBC Communications, Qwest Communications International and Verizon Communications--are listed on the company's Web site as past or present clients.

Comcast, the largest U.S. cable provider, is also on that list, as are industry groups such as the U.S. Telecom Association. What's more, the experts who have authored these reports also have ties to the phone and cable companies. For example, David McClure, who contributed to the report in February, is CEO of the ="http: www.usiia.org="" "="">U.S. Internet Industry Association, which is also listed as a client of Issues Dynamics. Verizon holds an IIA board seat.

Open debate
Samuel Simon, the president of Issue Dynamics, said he sees his detractors' point of view, but he also said he feels that his company has been open about its relationship with the telephone and cable companies.

"I understand the complaint that people have with the reports from NMRC," he said. "But I feel reasonably comfortable that the relationships we have with our clients are transparent. We try to be reasonably open about the fact that some research funding is from business interest."

Allen Hepner, the executive director of NMRC, defended his organization's practices and reports.

"I think it's terrible that people's immediate knee-jerk reaction when a paper comes out that is critical of something is to say that it has certain preconceived perspectives that come from a funder," he said. "I ask people to read the reports that have been put forth by a composite of independent experts and assess the report on the merits."

Representatives from the Progress & Freedom Foundation assert that its research is not biased even though it receives funding from Verizon and Comcast because it also receives funding from companies such as Intel that back municipal broadband.

DeGraff and other supporters of municipally owned networks have said that much of the information presented in these reports is inaccurate. In an effort to present their side of the argument, the ="http: www.freepress.net="" index.php"="">Free Press, the Consumer Federation of America, and the Media Access Project teamed up on a report called "Telco Lies and the Truth about Municipal Broadband Networks." The report includes a section disputing all the claims found in NMRC's reports about municipal broadband projects that have failed.

"I would love to debate the facts," said Jim Baller, a principal attorney at The Baller Herbst Law Group, which represents many municipalities. "I don't care who funds them, as long as they are truthful. But the information they are presenting is inaccurate, and it continues to be perpetuated through the media. It's outrageous."