UPDATE - 8/10/10: On Monday, August 9, 2010, Google and Verizon introduced a joint proposal for the future of Internet regulation. The proposal would give greater power to industry lead advisory groups and exempt wireless broadband services from regulation, significantly realigning the debate on net neutrality. While the repercussions of this proposal are being hashed out, we recommend this article on the pact from the New York Times for an update on where Google and Verizon fall on the net neutrality scale.

**

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has a bit of a conundrum. Following an unfavorable court ruling on the extent of the Commission's powers to regulate Internet Service Providers (ISPs), the FCC has gone back to the drawing board to sketch out how "Internet Services" should be defined -- but they won't be making this decision alone. A multitude of parties with a stake in the (re)definition of these services have directed their resources toward Capitol Hill in an effort to influence lawmakers into seeing things their way.

To shine a little sunlight on this process, we've developed this net neutrality primer. Below you'll find a micro-history of the issue, a chart to introduce you to the major players, and some graphic-packed research into the lobbyists they've brought on board.

The Power of Definition

What's in a name? Would that which we call "Internet services" by any another name be treated differently?

Actually, yes.

ISPs are intent on maintaining the definition of the Internet as an "information service" as classified under Title I of the Communications Act. The FCC and others, including content providers and e-retailers, are of another mind: the Internet should be regulated under Title II as a "telecommunications service." The difference? The extent to which the government -- the FCC -- is empowered to regulate net services.

Last fall, in order to bolster the weak authority granted by Title I, the FCC beefed up its Internet Policy Statement to allow the Commission to regulate ISPs in favor of open Internet principles like net neutrality. To be "net neutral" is to be content-blind, enabling among other things equal quality and speed of access to the Internet, regardless of where web traffic is directed.

In 2008, the FCC attempted to use the authority granted by its Internet Policy Statement to crack down on Comcast (a telecom and major ISP), which was restricting access to a peer-to-peer sharing network. Comcast responded by challenging the Commission in court. Although there was legal precedence for the FCC's behavior, in April 2010 a federal appellate court ruled in favor of Comcast, stating that policy is not law.

Invested parties on both sides reacted strongly, unleashing swat teams of lobbyists on Washington to push for status quo or pull for a reclassification of Internet services, with a few shades in between. FCC Chair Julius Genachowski tried to offer a "Third Way" to resolve the deadlock, but so far the feedback to his proposal -- a mixture of regulatory authority generated by Titles I and II -- has ranged from mixed support to outright rejection.

To help make the interests and demands of these actors more transparent, we've constructed a chart to walk you though the arguments of some of the biggest players on each side.

The Power of Numbers

So what do you do to ensure that you get your way in a redefinition of power and regulation? Why, lobby, of course! And who better to lobby Congress than former lawmakers and government workers themselves? According to research by my colleague Paul Blumenthal (based on data from the Center for Responsive Politics), nearly seventy-two percent of lobbyists hired by the top telecommunications companies have previous government experience. But those opposed to net neutrality aren't the only ones spinning the revolving door to protect their interests. Seventy-four percent of the lobbyists hired by Microsoft and Google, two of the biggest proponents of net neutrality, also worked in government.

To have "worked in government" means that a lobbyist has held at least one job with at least one government division: Congress, the White House, or a federal agency. By an overwhelming majority, most lobbyists on both sides of the issue have had experience working in Congress. Of the 274 lobbyists hired by AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, National Cable & Television Association, and the US Telecom Association against net neutrality, 247 worked in some capacity in Congress -- that's ninety percent of the lobbyists hired. Of that 247, 201 trace their work history back to Congress exclusively; the other 47 held positions with multiple branches of government. Prior work history reveals a professional and personal network of influence: the more connections, the more leverage.

For those hired by Google, Microsoft, Amazon, eBay, Tivo, and the Independent Film & Television Association (IFTA) to lobby in favor of net neutrality, ninety-one percent (141 of 155 lobbyists) had work experience in Congress. Of those, 118 worked only with Congress, and 26 lobbyists worked with multiple branches of government.

So what do these numbers tell us -- or rather, what can they show us? Take a peek at the infographic I built off of Paul's research below. Whether Comcast hired more former White House staffers than Google matters little. What does matter are the connections held by each lobbyist. Prior work history reveals a professional and personal network of influence: the people a lobbyist knows and may be able to call upon to support their clients. The more connections, the more leverage. When former congressional staffers (and congressmen) work as lobbyists, they bring with them a well developed network with ties to government. These networks often prove critical to the policy-making process. In some cases, the most powerful connections are to congressional members and their staff who would have to weigh in on any legislative change to the operation of the FCC.

Some points to keep in mind about this data: some of the companies on both sides of the net neutrality issue hired the same firms to lobby in their interest. If you check out this spreadsheet noting the names of all the lobbyists discussed in this article, you'll see that many lobbyists are listed as working for companies on both sides of net neutrality. Due to the structure and requirements of lobbyist disclosure forms, we don't know the extent to which any one lobbyist worked on a specific issue or how much money was spent on that issue. We can, however, match the lobbying "teams" to the issues they lobbied on.

Although the top six opponents of net neutrality camp are well known, we chose to include some lesser known advocates -- Tivo and IFTA -- to account for a equivalent range of six major players on the pro-net neutrality side. More well-known net neutrality advocates like Facebook, PayPal, and the OIC** did not disclose any lobbying data related to net neutrality for the first quarter of 2010 (where the rest of our data comes from). Seeking a fairer comparison between the anti- and pro-net neutrality camps, we included Tivo and IFTA's lobbying data because they are vocal advocates and represent some of the diversity of the content providers in favor of net neutrality.

In a more transparent world we could make the most of this data by comparing the amount of money spent by each interested party on their lobbyists to trace the price of influence. Unfortunately, with the electronic disclosure system as it is now, we can only wait for quarterly releases of aggregate data that hint at greater issues but reveal less than we need to know. If you're interested in learning more about what you can do to help to bring public data online, in real time, check out our Public=Online campaign.

The Sunlight Foundation takes no position on the FCC's title reclassification of ISPs. * Note: PayPal is a subsidiary of eBay, which did lobby on net neutrality issues in the first quarter of 2010 (disclosed here and here). The Open Internet Coalition (OIC) was also registered to lobby on these issues. We erred in saying that they didn't lobby.

EDIT: Four lobbyists hired by interests on the pro-net neutrality side were accounted for twice in the original data we published. The total of lobbyists with congressional work experience is 118, not 121. The numbers in the infographic and the above statistics have been correct to account for this change.

Two of the biggest proponents of net neutrality rules for broadband providers involved in closed door congressional committee negotiations have hired 112 former government officials to lobby as Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have both pushed new broadband Internet policies.

For the first three months of 2010, seventy-four percent of the lobbyists hired by both Google* and Microsoft have previous experience in government, according to data obtained from the Center for Responsive Politics and lobbyist disclosure forms. This is a very similar number when compared to the percentage of former government officials hired to lobby for the top six telecommunications organizations.

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation and the House Committee on Energy & Commerce are holding meetings with industry and consumer organizations in response to a series of actions by the FCC including a court decision that blocked the FCC's attempted implementation of net neutrality rules. Net neutrality rules would disallow broadband service providers from discriminating against users and content by preventing them from slowing access to certain users and charging money to acesss certain content.

The committees held their first meeting last Friday and plan to host another meeting on July 2.

Google and Microsoft are spending the most on lobbying among the pro-net neutrality organizations invited to the behind the scenes discussions with the two committees.

According to first quarter lobbying disclosures, the two companies have spent a combined $2.1 million on lobbying. By comparison, the two lobbying spenders opposed to net neutrality that were invited to the congressional meetings shelled out $10.5 million in the first quarter of 2010.

Despite spending far less than organizations opposed to net neutrality, Google and Microsoft have fielded a quality team of lobbyists with experience working for important lawmakers and on crucial committees.

Combined the companies have hired thirteen former staffers of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation or members of the committee and nine former staffers of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce or their members.

These lobbyists include Barry LaSala, the former chief of staff to the Senate committee's number two Democrat Sen. John Kerry, who lobbies for Microsoft. LaSala also lobbies for net neutrality opponent Verizon.

Andy Scott Wright, lobbying for Google, worked previously as the Chief of Staff to Rep. Rick Boucher, chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet. Boucher is leading the meetings for the House Committee on Energy & Commerce.

The representatatives in the closed door congressional meetings for both Google and Microsoft have experience on the committees. Google’s Johanna Shelton previously worked on the House Committee on Energy & Commerce and Microsoft’s Paula Boyd used to work for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation.

Other Internet companies supporting net neutrality might be spending far less than Google and Microsoft, but they are also largely hiring former government officials to lobby for them.

Over eighty percent of the lobbyists retained by both eBay and Amazon.com—of these two only Amazon.com is engaged in the congressional meetings—have experience in government.

(*Disclosure: Google senior manager Kim Scott sits on the Advisory Board of the Sunlight Foundation. Kim Scott sits on the Advisory Board of the Sunlight Foundation, but no longer works for Google.)

Last Friday, two congressional committees held closed door discussions with 31 representatives from industry and activist groups to discuss writing a new broadband Internet policy, largely focused on whether and how to implement net neutrality rules, into the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While the meeting contained more proponents of net neutrality, opponents of implementing the policy hold a lop-sided advantage in lobbying spending and contributing to political campaigns.

In attendance were some of the major organizations on both sides of the debate. The biggest organizations in attendance in support of the legislation included Google, Microsoft, Amazon.com and two service providers breaking with their industry, DISH Network and Sprint. Opponents included AT&T, Verizon, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Communications Workers of America and the US Telecom Association. A number of public interest and consumer groups were also present.

According to data obtained from the Center for Responsive Politics, net neutrality opponents represented at the meeting combined for $19.7 million in lobbying in the first quarter of 2010. Supporters, on the other hand, only combined for $4.7 million in first quarter lobbying expenses. (Organizations with undefined, or unidentifiable, positions combined for just under $1 million.)

The major campaign contributors opposed to net neutrality gave $6.9 million to political candidates from 2009-2010 while major contributors in support gave $2.2 million.

Both sides of the debate sent lobbyists with previous government experience into the closed-door meetings with the committees. Eight of the 31 organization representatives present at the meeting previously worked in Congress. Five of those eight previously worked for one of the two committees holding the meeting.

Lobbyists for net neutrality proponents had good connections to the lawmakers in the room. Google's Johanna Shelton previously worked on the House Committee on Energy & Commerce; Microsoft's Paula Boyd used to work for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation; Amazon.com sent lobbyist Emmett O'Keefe, a former staffer to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation member Sen. Byron Dorgan.

Two organizations in opposition sent lobbyists with similarly good connections: National Cable & Telecommunications Association sent James Assey, a former staffer on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and US Telecom Association sent Walter McCormick, another former staffer from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

The meetings, held jointly by the House Committee on Energy & Commerce and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, are the result of years of efforts by Congress to pass net neutrality legislation and recent developments involving the Federal Communications Commission's attempts to impose net neutrality rules the industry.

Net neutrality rules would disallow broadband service providers from discriminating against users and content by preventing them from slowing access to certain users and charging money to acesss certain content.

The FCC attempted to impose these rules after Comcast slowed service to certain users using the BitTorrent file-sharing service. In April, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the FCC, stating that they did not have the regulatory authority to stop Comcast from blocking or slowing certain users of their broadband service.

Broadband providers have largely opposed the implementation of net neutrality rules, while Internet companies have largely backed them.

The committees are scheduled to hold another talk this Friday. The list of organizations and their representatives, provided by Tech Daily Dose, can be found below:

AT&T, Tim McKone Amazon, Emmett O'Keefe CDT, David Sohn Cisco, Jeff Campbell CompTel, Jerry James Consumers Union (CU), Joel Kelsey CTIA, Jot Carpenter CWA, Debbie Goldman Dish, David Goodfriend Free Press, Derek Turner Free State Foundation, Randolph May Google, Johanna Shelton ITI, Dean Garfield ITIF, Rob Atkinson Level 3, John Ryan MAP, Andy Schwartzman Microsoft, Paula Boyd NARUC, Brian O'Hara NASUCA, Brenda Pennington NCTA, James Assey NTCA, Tom Wacker OIC, Markham Erickson PFF, Dan Horowitz Phoenix Center, Larry Spiwak Public Knowledge, Ernesto Falcon Qwest, Melissa Newman RCA, Tim Donovan Sprint, Bill Barloon TIA, Grant Seiffert US Telecom, Walter McCormick Verizon, Peter Davidson

As leaders in Congress announced a series of hearings this June to tackle huge telecommunications issues with a focus on the Internet, the top phone and cable organizations that control the majority of the access to the Internet have hired 276 former government officials to lobby both the Congress and the executive branch.

According to data obtained from lobbyist disclosure forms and the Center for Responsive Politics, seventy-two percent of the lobbyists hired by AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and the US Telecom Association have previous government experience. These organizations combined to spend $20.6 million lobbying the federal government in the first quarter of 2010.

Eighteen of the 276 revolving door lobbyists are former members of Congress. These include the powerful former senators John Breaux and Trent Lott. The Breaux Lott Leadership Group reported spending $150,000 lobbying on behalf of AT&T in the first quarter of 2010.

Both Breaux and Lott served in the leadership of their respective parties while in the Senate with Lott serving as Majority Leader. Lott also served on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, the committee with jurisdiction over the telecommunications industry.

The eighteen former lawmakers include a heavy representation from the House Committee on Energy & Commerce, the House committee with telecommunications jurisdication. In 2010, the organizations hired former Energy & Commerce Committee members Jim Davis (AT&T), Jack Fields (Verizon), Ron Klink (Comcast), Chip Pickering (Comcast and National Cable and Television Association) and Al  Wynn (US Telecom Association).

The organizations are also hiring former lawmakers with previous clout in both the House and the Senate. Former Sen. Don Nickles, hired to lobby for Comcast, was the Republican Majority Whip from 1996 to 2001. Comcast also hired the former House Majority Whip William H. Gray.

Aside from Breaux and Lott, AT&T has hired two other lawmakers with strong resumes, former House Republican Conference Chair J.C. Watts and longtime California Democrat Vic Fazio.

The top telecom organizations are also hiring a number of lobbyists who previously worked on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation or the House Committee on Energy & Commerce. Fourteen lobbyists used to work on the House committee and thirteen previously worked at the Senate committee. In addition, the six organizations employ 26 former staffers of current members of the House committee and 22 former staffers of current members of the Senate committee.

These staffers include the former chief of staff, Lane Bailey, and deputy chief of staff, Patrick Robertson, to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation. Robertson lobbies for Comcast and Bailey lobbies for the National Cable and Television Association.

The former counsel to Sen. John Kerry, the number two Democrat on the committee, Barry LaSala, is registered to lobby for Verizon.

Comcast and Time Warner Cable lead the way in hiring former government officials as lobbyists. Ninety percent of lobbyists hired by Time Warner Cable previously worked in government. Two Time Warner lobbyists served as congressmen and two others served as staffers to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation.

In first quarter lobbyists disclosure filings for 2010, eighty-eight percent of all lobbyists hired by Comcast had previous experience in government. While this percentage is slightly lower than Time Warner's, Comcast hired more than twice as many lobbyists with former government experience as Time Warner did—82 to 38. This includes five former members of Congress and four Energy & Commerce Committee staffers. Comcast, as it seeks government approval of its purchase of NBC Universal, has also hired six former officials from the Department of Justice.

Broadband regulation has been a major issue over the past few years as many Democrats, including President Obama, have called for the institution of net neutrality rules to govern broadband transmission. Net neutrality regulations would prevent broadband service providers from blocking or slowing transmission to certain sites, services and users.

In April, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was rebuffed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after trying to stop Comcast from slowing broadband access to users using the BitTorrent file-sharing service. The court ruled that the FCC did not have sufficient regulatory authority to require Comcast to provide equal access to all sites and services online.

In the wake of the court's decision, four committee and subcommittee chairmen announced a series of meetings with industry players to discuss a rewrite of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The meetings will focus on the changes in telecommunications brought on by the revolution in Internet technologies over the past fifteen years. Much of that time is expected to be spent on the regulation of broadband routes.

A group of 74 Democratic lawmakers recently sent a letter to FCC Commissioner Julius Genachowski asking that the FCC not institute net neutrality rules without specific instruction from Congress. The 74 Democrats were comprised of a mix of Blue Dog Democrats, New Dems and members of both the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC).

At least, six of the letter signatorees—Reps. Joe Baca, Allen Boyd, Corrine Brown, Baron Hill, Eddie Bernice Johnson and Ciro Rodriquez—have former staffers lobbying for the top telecom organizations.

Philadelphia congressman Robert Brady recently joined 71 other lawmakers in signing a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) questioning the commission's newly stated policy of network neutrality, which would prohibit Internet providers from favoring or discriminating against types of traffic coming across their lines. Of the 72 letter signatories, Brady is the leading recipient of campaign contributions from the combination of telecom companies and their lobbyists. Since 2007, Brady has received a total of $91,650, all from one company and their lobbyists, the Philadelphia-based Comcast Corporation.

Brady has a long standing history of supporting the policies of Comcast Corporation. In 2006, Brady, along with 38 of the other letter signatories, voted against an amendment to the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 that would have established a federal net neutrality policy.

The Democratic letter signatories have stated that the letter is not a letter of opposition, but instead simply a voice for concern. The previous voting behavior of a large number of signatories is one sign that this is not the case. The similarity that the letter bares to public statements by Comcast executives is another sign that the agenda of the signatories is closely linked to that of the companies opposing the policy shift.

The letter signed by Brady and 71 other Democrats mimics the language released by Comcast after the FCC's announcement of a net neutrality proposal. The Democratic letter reads as follows, "...we believe in a transparent, data-driven process and stand ready to work with you on measures that will spur adoption and expand the use of broadband networks. But we remain suspicious of conclusions based on slogans rather than substance and of policies that restrict and inhibit the very innovation and growth that we all seek to achieve." Comcast's executive vice president issued a statement with almost identical language, "We appreciate and support Chairman Genachowski's commitment to have a fair, fact-based, and data driven process to explore these issues. We continue to hope that any rules adopted by the Commission will not harm the investment and innovation that has made the Internet what it is today and that will make it even greater tomorrow."

Comcast has been at the center of net neutrality debate since the company was a subject of an FCC ruling that led to censure for slowing the lines for certain customers engaged in peer-to-peer downloads. Comcast claimed that some users were slowing the lines with excessive downloads of BitTorrent files. The FCC, however, ruled that Comcast had "arbitrarily picked an application and blocked their subscribers' access to it."

So far this year Comcast has contributed over $1 million to lawmakers and candidates for Congress. In the previous election cycle, Comcast contributed nearly $3 million.