Guess It Depends on What the Definition of "Consumer" Is Posted by Bob at 05/09/07 11:40 AM

We must admit we were flabbergasted by this shocking headline on a press release (PDF) that popped up in our email inbox this morning.

"Net Neutrality Would Cost Consumers $69 Billion over the next 10 years, Cut Subscribers Lower Income Broadband Consumers Would be the Most Affected," it blared.

We had no idea that net neutrality -- the concept of preventing Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination -- would be so devastating to consumers. Like nearly every other major consumer group, we here at Consumers Union have been under the impression that net neutrality would actually benefit consumers.

But there it was in black and white, based on a research report by a group called the American Consumer Institute.

Could all of us consumer advocates have been so wrong about this?

Turns out, not so much.

The contact name on the American Consumer Institute press release was Stephen Pociask. The name rang a bell with us, but we weren't sure why.

But a quick Google search jogged our memory. Pociask is a telecommunications industry consultant and a former chief economist for Bell Atlantic, which these days is known as Verizon.

We went to the American Consumer Institute web site and looked up Pociask's bio. It was quite impressive, but surpisingly there was no mention of his work as chief economist for Bell Atlantic. Go figure.

We will leave it to you, dear reader, to decide how credible the American Consumer Institute is when it comes to looking out for consumers.

And just so you know, we still think net neutrality will benefit consumers. We will admit, however, that $69 billion is a lot of money.

comments (0)