The future of the Internet is being shaped by legal battles involving some of the world’s most powerful corporations.  Spearheading the movement have been startup companies that employ vocal technology.  These companies have been advocating for stronger regulations concerning broadband access while Internet service providers such as Comcast and Verizon have been pushing for more flexibility.  The battle is being closely watched by several major companies who don’t have a stake in the particular outcome but are very concerned about the legal issues concerning the future of the Internet.

While the debate about net neutrality continues most people don’t really understand the issue.  What is the difference between an “open internet” and a “closed internet.”  Well, an open or neutral internet prevent service providers from restricting bandwidth, limiting access to their competitors’ services or charging extra for faster connections.  A January 2014 ruling from the DC Circuit Court determined that the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) had no authority to enforce its previous rules about net neutrality. This opened the decision about how to govern the internet’s future up to law makers in the US Congress.

A corporate alliance with subtle interests in this fight has been quietly pushing the Federal Communications Commission for strict broadband rules. In a series of meetings companies such as Ford Motor, Visa, United Parcel Service and Bank of America urged FCC commissioners to reclassify broadband service under Title II, according to documents filed with the FCC.  With some of the biggest Fortune 500 companies advocating for Internet access to be regulated along the lines of public utilities President Obama recently announced his support for such a position.  But all four of these companies have denied advocating for net neutrality and have refused to discuss the issue publicly.

A corporate advocacy group, the Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, has had several recent meetings with FCC commissioners, but refuses to disclose information about its membership, doesn’t make public statements, and doesn’t even have a website.  Everyone who meets with an FCC commissioner must report on their visit. The corporate representatives affiliated with Ad Hoc Telecom are listed in the FCC filings without mention of their employers, but their affiliations were not disputed by the companies. The attendees included Nicholas Lewis, senior vice president for federal legislative affairs at UPS,  Lawrence Chattoo, senior vice president for regulatory and public policy at Bank of America,  Carl Holshouser, a government relations leader at Visa and James Carroll a Washington counsel for Ford Motor

The FCC is also required to post information on what was discussed, and their disclosures make it clear that the people in these meetings argued against Internet fast lanes of all kinds.  “Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet” was the subject under discussion, according to the FCC disclosures, and Ad Hoc Telecom members argued that Internet providers have “terminating access monopolies” which means that any company wishing to reach a customer has to go through the Internet providers first.

Of course, the fear is that the Internet providers will exploit that power.   The Ad Hoc Telecom members specifically argued for Title II reclassification and according to the FCC filings, passed out a handout which can be found here, here, and here.  Despite the FCC disclosures, the companies whose executives attended the FCC meetings told Bloomberg Businessweek that the proceedings did not include statements of support for Title II. “For this meeting, Ford’s goal was to understand the commissioner’s perspective and to also share our objective of providing a fast and reliable connection for our customers and their vehicles. Ford did not advocate for Title II classification,” says Ford spokeswoman Emily Olin. Visa likewise says it isn’t pushing a particular point of view on net neutrality. Kara Ross, a spokeswoman for UPS, says, “We were talking to the commissioners about terminating access monopoly.”

Ad Hoc Telecom’s low profile hasn’t prevented the group from occasionally tangling with telecommunications companies. For example, in July representatives from the group filed a comment with the FCC urging it to reclassify broadband under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The group argued that the Internet had become too vital to remain subject to lighter regulations afforded to information services. “This is a question of fact, not policy,” the group wrote. “As a result of changes in the engineering and deployment of network and Internet technologies, the commission’s classification of Internet service in 1997 as an unregulated ‘information service’ is simply out of step with reality.”

It’s not surprising that these companies don’t want to publicly discuss net neutrality because they would run the risk of upsetting business partners such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast. Groups like the Telecommunications Users Committee exist to shield these companies from such conflicts, even as the companies quietly pursue policy goals in talks with the FCC.

What is surprising is that such nontech companies as Ford and Bank of America feel strongly enough about net neutrality to bother advocating behind closed doors. A startup like video streaming service Vimeo clearly has a lot to lose from Internet fast lanes—the risk to a trucking company like UPS is a bit less obvious.

Ad Hoc Telecom explained this in a filing with the FCC back in July: “Every retailer with an online catalogue, every manufacturer with online product specifications, every insurance company with online claims processing, every bank offering online account management, every company with a website– every business in America interacting with its customers online is dependent upon an open Internet.”