Phillip Dampier

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski recorded a YouTube video to talk to Americans about the development of a national broadband plan for the United States.

In optimistic, flowery language, Genachowski invited Americans to submit their ideas and suggestions not only regarding broadband, but also the priorities Americans think the FCC should have in the future.

The most important part of the five minute video comes right in the beginning when Genachowski called broadband critical to the nation:

“Broadband is our generation’s major infrastructure challenge. It’s for us what railroads, highways and electricity were to past generations.”

Genachowski would do well to remember America’s experience with all three of these important history lessons.  The broadband plan Genachowski envisions is subject to the same type of intrusive, anti-consumer tactics that wreaked havoc on past generations of consumers.

The railroad industry’s cartel of ownership and control is a familiar tale.  The Rise of Monopolies tells the story:

The need for all of these industries to stay successful was worrisome for railroad owners. To avoid the loss of production in any of these areas, large corporations attempted to stabilize their situations by pooling markets and centralizing management. By combining all of the fields into one conglomeration, the railroads had a new power, as they acquired control of many facets of the new economy. This body now had the ability to “squeeze out competitors, force down prices paid for labor and raw materials, charge customers more and get special favors and treatments from National and State government” (Chalmers). The railroads had all the power, because they controlled all the prices. Since the new residents of the West could not survive without the use of the railroads, they were forced to pay whatever rates the railroad companies set.

With these huge stores of capital, the railroad companies were able to finance political campaigns through whatever and whomever was needed in government. With this control in Washington, there was no way to stop the overwhelming control of this industry over society. The entire nation was subject to the whims of this monopoly.

It took direct government intervention to break up the railroad monopoly and protect consumers and businesses from the abusive practices of a transportation industry that can make or break you based on pricing and service, with little competition.

Public highways became an important asset that still pays off today.  The Eisenhower Administration’s deployment of the interstate highway system, at the size and scope required, would not have been accomplished by the private sector on its own.  Today’s federal highway system is largely self sustaining through the collection of gasoline taxes paid by drivers.

As Americans struggle with several incumbent providers that refuse to provide 21st century broadband technology, with little competition to drive that infrastructure investment, an uneven variety of broadband networks have emerged, from fiber to the home in some areas to an indefinite reliance on aging DSL slow speed technology for millions of rural Americans, or worse, inadequate satellite broadband.

It may be time to consider the same kind of national approach with a publicly owned fiber network private providers of all kinds can use to serve customers with a uniformly high speed, high quality user experience.

Electricity and the development of rural America is another very familiar tale to any rural broadband user.  From TVA: Electricity for All:

Although nearly 90 percent of urban dwellers had electricity by the 1930s, only ten percent of rural dwellers did. Private utility companies, who supplied electric power to most of the nation’s consumers, argued that it was too expensive to string electric lines to isolated rural farmsteads. Anyway, they said, most farmers, were too poor to be able to afford electricity.

The Roosevelt Administration believed that if private enterprise could not supply electric power to the people, then it was the duty of the government to do so. Most of the court cases involving TVA during the 1930s concerned the government’s involvement in the public utilities industry.

In 1935 the Rural Electric Administration (REA) was created to bring electricity to rural areas like the Tennessee Valley.

Many groups opposed the federal government’s involvement in developing and distributing electric power, especially utility companies, who believed that the government was unfairly competing with private enterprise. Some members of Congress who didn’t think the government should interfere with the economy, believed that TVA was a dangerous program that would bring the nation a step closer to socialism. Other people thought that farmers simply did not have the skills needed to manage local electric companies.

Any community wrestling with a municipal broadband project to provide service the private market refused to offer is already acquainted with this familiar story.  So are many rural consumers who are waiting, and waiting, and waiting, for the private market to bring broadband to their communities.  Unfortunately for them, the private market has already written them off as “not profitable enough” to provide service.

The electrification of America did not lead to a socialist takeover of America.  It led to the development and sustainability of rural communities and their local economies.  Agriculture remains one of America’s most important success stories, and without widespread electrification, this story might not have been written.

Scare tactics and horror stories have come whenever a private monopoly or cartel faces the threat of competition, regulation, or a municipal option to provide needed services communities are denied by the private sector.

The fear mongering was there when the railroad monopolies faced investigation and regulation, the “socialism” scare was heard when government attempted to undertake public infrastructure projects of many kinds from highways to utility service, and the same kinds of rhetoric is heard today about “socialist takeovers of the Internet” and “municipal broadband unfairly competes with private providers,” and the logical opposite “the government can’t do anything right.”

Unfortunately, the FCC has a long history of cozy relations with lobbyists who understand how to work within the agency’s nearly-impenetrable bureaucracy.  A review of the broadband plan submissions to the FCC reveals a large  number of them come from lobbying groups and the providers themselves.  Most consumers were left typing comments into a box on the web submission form, with every indication those remarks will be deemed “not serious” by FCC staff.

This time, Chairman Genachowski has to show more than a YouTube video inviting consumers to share their input.  We’d like actual evidence the consumer point of view is actually being taken seriously for a change, and is not simply one tiny noise drowned out in a loud crowd of special interests with profit agendas to protect and public policy to influence.  The FCC already knows what consumers want: widely available, fast, reasonably priced broadband free from Internet Overcharging schemes protected with robust Net Neutrality policies enforced by law.

If the existing providers want to erect roadblocks to competition, oversight, and hell-or-high-water-broadband-deployment, it’s time to break them up and get them out of the way.  That’s broadband we can believe in.

Professor Rodney Tiffen

The Sydney Morning Herald ran a piece Friday morning that had absolutely nothing nice to say about the former leadership of Telstra, Australia’s “Private Telecom Monopoly.”

Sol Trujillo was the George W. Bush of telecommunications. For both, the American way was the only way. Being the biggest meant you did not have to do diplomacy, and both were better at starting wars than finishing them. Both used patronage and punishment to ensure a like-minded leadership group that made worse decisions more harmoniously.

Australians remain unimpressed with the tumbleweeds that routinely blow across the Land Down Under’s broadband superhighway — the result of a combination of failed government leadership, special-interest dominated public policies which put the interests of private companies ahead of their own citizens, and the predictable emergence of greedy telecommunications providers delivering the least possible service at the highest possible price for millions of Australians.

Rodney Tiffen, professor of government at the University of Sydney, calls out a succession of Australian governments which have repeatedly dropped the broadband ball, and have left the country with comparatively overpriced service with ludicrous Internet Overcharging schemes that punish citizens with usage caps, outrageous reductions in their broadband speeds or, worse, overlimit fees and penalties:

Australian consumers suffered particularly from the stringent caps placed on downloads and the high expense of exceeding the cap. While in nine of the countries no explicit caps were placed on broadband subscriptions, Australia was one of only four countries (with New Zealand, Canada and Belgium) where all survey offers included caps, and among these four was by far the most expensive when the caps were exceeded – an average of 11 cents per megabyte compared with 1 cent for the others.

Tiffen rejects the argument that Australians have to pay more because Australia has low population density.

“It should also be remembered Australia has a higher percentage of people living in large cities (defined as those with more than three-quarters of a million people) than any of the other countries (measured by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development),” Tiffen writes.

The key policy issue Tiffen identifies is: what is a natural monopoly and when does competition produce more dynamism and responsiveness to consumers? Since telecommunications reform came on to the public agenda about two decades ago, there had been a bipartisan failure to address this central question.

Tiffen wants Australia to recognize the mistakes America made dealing with its cable television industry — “replete with cases where a company controlling the delivery platform has favoured its own company’s channels over its competitors.”

“Indeed a private monopoly at a key gate-keeping point often leads to less competition in services than there would be with a publicly owned or regulated infrastructure,” Tiffen argues.

Washington County, New York

Washington County, one of New York’s many rural counties, sits on the eastern border of the state adjacent to Vermont.  Its 62,000 citizens have access to dial-up, some areas have been wired by Time Warner Cable, and some others have access to Verizon DSL service.  But vast swaths of the county have no choice for broadband at all.  The Washington County Board of Supervisors wants to do something about that and will vote this week on a proposal to spend $40,000 to study how Washington, in cooperation with Warren and Hamilton counties, could benefit from a wireless broadband network being proposed by Plattsburgh (N.Y.)-based CBN Connect.

CBN Connect is a non profit corporation that constructs broadband platforms and networks it resells to commercial providers who will not construct such networks themselves.  CBN Connect’s website states “providers like Time Warner (Cable), Primelink, Westelcom, and others [can use their networks] to reach new customers.”

CBN Connect has plans to develop both fiber optic and wireless networks across New York’s “North Country” in eastern upstate areas.

No details about the type of wireless network under consideration were available.

Readers of The Post Star, which serves the county, had some problems with the country spending $40,000 of taxpayer dollars on the study:

“We are actually thinking of spending $40,000 to fund a private company’s “study?” If CBN wants to sell their services, which I am guessing they will profit on, let them fund whether it is feasable or not. This money can be better spent in other areas of the county, or better yet, don’t spend it at all.” — Whall01

“If there’s a demand (home or business) then the providers (Time Warner Cable, Verizon, CBN Connect) will do their own study (and fund it) to see if it makes sense to them. If they don’t, then they won’t be in business long. Washington county supervisors need to figure out how to cut expenses and overhead, not add to them.” — HFRES

“What a waste — $40,000 for a study to bring broadband to the community? FiOS is the technology that we should be looking into.  Why are our counties always a day late and a dollar short of keeping up with the rest of the world? These counties should be joining together to get Verizon here and bring us FiOS.” — Enoughalready

Mark Cuban, owner of HDNet, maintains a personal blog

Mark Cuban is on another tear this week.  Stop the Cap! reader Michael referred us to the latest.  This time it’s TV Everywhere, the cable industry’s answer to online video they get to own and control.

TV Everywhere is a concept put out by TV distributors that basically says that if you pay for cable or satellite, you should be able to watch the content you want, where you want. Everywhere. To some people this is not a good idea.  As is always the case,  many people think tv programming should be widely available for free on the internet.  Of course the content is never free. Someone has to pay to create it and we purchasers of cable and satellite services pay the subscription fees that pay the content companies and allow them to create all that content. Someone always must pay for free. Its unfortunate that there are some incredibly greedy people who think their entertainment needs should be subsidized. We aren’t talking healthcare, we are talking The Simpsons.  No one in the country has the right for their Simpsons to be subsidized.

I am uncertain why Mark is tilting at windmills here, fighting a battle with arguments that are beside the point.

He should know, as an independent programmer, permitting another cartel for video program distribution online has the potential to place control of that content in the hands of the pay television industry.  Agreements to carry a cable network on a cable system could easily become contingent on participation in TV Everywhere once it becomes more established.  Mark knows all about restrictive carriage agreements.  Some of his networks were trapped in a mini-premium HD tier on Time Warner Cable, despite his wishes to see them a part of the general HD lineup.  Once Time Warner Cable threw his networks off their cable systems nationwide, presumably so would go our online access to it as well.

For consumers, the basic concept of TV Everywhere seems like a positive development, if it brings online video content people want to see without charging them yet another fee on their pay television bill.  Consumers, raise your hand if you have a problem with more online video.

In fact, the loudest concerns about the entire endeavor these days are coming from the content producers and owners themselves.  They are the ones worrying about giving content away.

The Wall Street Journal chronicles the concerns:

While 24 networks are taking part in the Comcast trial, including Time Warner’s Turner cable networks, broadcaster CBS, AMC, BBC America, and Hallmark Channel, Walt Disney Co. (DIS) has so far avoided the “TV Everywhere” experiment because it doesn’t offer the Disney networks enough money in return for allowing their shows to be streamed over the Web.

“A new opportunity to reach consumers is very attractive … [but] we want to do so in a way that delivers proper compensation [to us] for that value,” said Disney Chief Financial Officer Tom Staggs, who spoke at the Goldman Sachs media conference on Tuesday.

That brought out Jeff Bewkes, Time Warner CEO, who scoffed at the demands for compensation.  Bewkes reminded Disney who is paying the bills.

“[The content providers are] not the ones who are going to the effort and expense of making this possible,” he remarked. “The ones that are making this possible are the distributors – the telcos, the satellite companies, the cable companies.”

Second, nobody is arguing that TV programming should be given away “free” online with absolutely no compensation.  The existing online video models are primarily advertiser supported.  The advertisers pay the costs to make the service available, and viewers endure online commercials during each ad break.  Some networks want to cram a ton of ads equaling the number a viewer would see on their television (get ready for more Snuggie and door draft stick on tape ads). Others are more realistic and will place a maximum of 30 seconds of commercials during each break.  Finding the right balance will be important — too many ads and consumers will pirate the content to avoid the ads.  Run smaller amounts and consumers will easily tolerate them.

Third, nobody I am aware of is arguing TV needs to be “subsidized.”  What does that even mean?

Besides the skirmish between content providers and the companies that want to distribute TV Everywhere, the concerns I’ve seen expressed include:

• The concentration and control of online video content through a cable industry-controlled authentication system that is long on generalities and short on specifics regarding how it will operate.  How do non-cable subscribers get “authenticated.”  What procedures are in place to protect the competitive data other providers will have to share with any authentication process?  How about customer privacy?  Is there equity of access to TV Everywhere regardless of the pay television service the consumer subscribes to?
• The credibility of the broadband providers’ argument that their networks are already overcrowded to the point they must “experiment” with usage caps, consumption billing, and other Internet Overcharging schemes.  Apparently their networks aren’t nearly as congested as they would have us believe, considering the fact they are participating in a project to place an even greater load on those networks.
• Mark seems to support content portability, namely the ability for a subscriber to place that content on any device for viewing.  Good luck.  Content producers go bananas over content that can be downloaded and viewed on any device or computer, because such open standards are also open to rampant piracy.

TV Everywhere can be a consumer value-added service for pay television providers, if it’s handled in a consumer friendly way.  The cable industry does not have an excellent track record of keeping their customers in love with them.  My personal concern is that what TV Everywhere gives away for free to “authenticated” subscribers today will tomorrow be packed with advertising, carry an additional fee for access on your cable bill, and will be just one more excuse to try and ram usage caps and consumption billing down the throats of the broadband customers trying to take advantage of their broadband service.

Motorola SB6120 SURFboard DOCSIS 3.0 eXtreme Broadband Cable Modem

Another year, another rate hike for millions of Comcast customers.  The cable company is notifying cable subscribers of rate increases for programming and equipment.  While Comcast says the rate increases are among the lowest the company has implemented, the sting will be felt differently based on the types of services a customer receives.  One particularly nasty increase is for the cable modem rental fee.  In most areas, that used to be $3 a month, but is now increasing a whopping 66% to $5 a month.  Comcast blames the increased equipment expenses incurred upgrading their broadband network.

Consumers can avoid the monthly rental fee by purchasing their own cable modem, retailing for $60-100 depending on the model.  A Motorola SB6120 SURFboard DOCSIS 3.0 eXtreme Broadband Cable Modem is available from Amazon.com for less than $90 and works with Comcast.

Although not every Comcast customer rents a cable modem from the company, the company will earn hundreds of millions of dollars in new revenue from the rate increase for cable modems, according to Multichannel News.

The Marin Independent Journal crunched the numbers:

In the San Francisco area, where Comcast has 2.2 million customers, the average rate increase will be 1.6 percent, down from a 4.9 percent spike in 2008-09 and a 6.9 percent jump in 2005-06.This year’s rate increase is the lowest in the past six years in what has become an annual rate hike for Comcast customers. The company has raised rates on its average Marin customer by a cumulative 29.5 percent over the past six years, based on the company’s annual notices of price changes.

The San Jose Mercury News observes that the rate increases will hit some harder than others:

Ironically, the customers who will see their rates increase are those who subscribe to the company’s lowest-end — and least-enhanced — packages. Subscribers to Comcast’s more expensive packages generally will see no rate increase.

Mindy Spat, communications director of The Utility Reform Network, a San Francisco-based consumer advocacy organization, said Comcast appears to be taking advantage of its lower-end customers.

She noted that many Bay Area consumers who were unable to tune in the new digital broadcast signals signed up for limited basic cable to continue to get the local channels after the old analog ones were switched off earlier this year. With the increases, Comcast also appears to be trying to push customers into higher-tier packages, she charged.

“If consumers had choices, they certainly would not choose Comcast,” Spat said. “But they don’t, and Comcast is taking advantage of the fact.”

Of course, the only thing not increasing this year is Comcast’s 250GB usage cap.  It remains locked firmly in place at 2008 levels.  How much Comcast will recoup from a perpetual modem rental fee providing up to $300+ million a year in new revenue is an open question.  But clearly some cable operators intend to pay for upgrades to their networks by means other than forcing consumers into consumption billing schemes.

Cricket has a nasty habit of selling customers an unlimited mobile broadband service… that is limited to 5GB of usage per month.  Today, the company announced it would be expanding its prepaid wireless broadband service to “big box” retail stores nationwide:

Cricket Broadband will soon be available in nearly 1,000 national retailer stores through a new all-inclusive $50 monthly service plan. The new plan will include all fees and taxes and provides unlimited Internet access without a signed contract or credit check. The Cricket A600 modem will be available as a grab-and-go offering for $69.99 with no activation fee. $50.00 top-up cards will also be available for this product.

The marketing on their website underlines the point: “With unlimited broadband access you can email, surf and download from your desktop or laptop anywhere in Cricket Broadband’s coverage areas.”

“Unlimited” in their marketing is actually “5GB” in the nitty-gritty details on their website as you sign-up:

Subscriber Management
We reserve the right to protect our network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance. We reserve the right to limit throughput speeds or amount of data transferred, and to deny, modify or terminate service, without notice, to anyone whose usage adversely impacts our network, service levels or uses more than 5 GB in a given month. We may monitor your compliance with the above but will not monitor the content of your communications except as otherwise expressly permitted or required by law.

Cricket needs to discontinue the practice of referring to a service as “unlimited” when it isn’t unlimited at all.  Cricket is also well aware of the 5GB limitation, because it is currently testing a 10GB plan priced at $60 a month.

Cricket has also applied for federal broadband stimulus funding to provide service to low income residents:

Low-income residents in San Diego County who can’t afford Internet service may get some financial help if a local wireless provider succeeds in getting more than $8 million in federal stimulus funds to expand broadband access.

San Diego-based Cricket Communications said yesterday that it has applied for federal Recovery Act funding geared to expanding high-speed Internet access not only in more remote rural areas but also to the urban poor.

Cricket is proposing a $10.7 million program to provide subsidized, low-cost Internet service to 23,000 low-income families in San Diego, Baltimore, Houston, Memphis, Tenn., and Washington, D.C.

Under the proposal, the federal government would cover 80 percent of the cost, with Cricket picking up the remainder. Cricket, a wholly owned subsidiary of Leap Wireless International, is working with One Economy, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit, to help it reach out to low-income households.

In addition, it plans to substantially discount its normal monthly service of $40 so that participants would pay $5 a month the first year and $15 a month the second year. The grant would cover two years of subsidized service.

As for Cricket’s new broadband plan, I’m unsure what’s new about it.  It appears to be priced $10 higher than the old $40 Cricket plan (that comes with a $25 activation fee).  The A600 modem is available for free after rebate from the Cricket website, and the service price there remains $40 a month, although “taxes and fees” are extra, which may account for the primary difference between the two plans. Cricket appears to be moving to “all-inclusive” pricing strategies, which means the price you see is your “out the door” price. Many consumers are shocked when signing up for a mobile phone service that is advertised at one price, and turns out to be considerably higher once taxes and fees are included on the bill.

The A600 offers average download speeds of 538 kilobits per second (Kbps) and peaks at 787 Kbps. The average upload speeds offered by this modem are of the order of 502 Kbps, according to a PC Magazine review.

[Update 9/22: A response from Zocolo Group on behalf of Cricket can be found in the comment section of this article.]

Communications and Information Technology Minister Hon. Steven Joyce

New Zealand, long ranked near the bottom of the barrel in broadband according to OECD rankings, will embark on a $1.5 billion (NZD) national broadband initiative, with a publicly-owned fiber network as its hallmark.

The plan, which will give urban and suburban New Zealand residents access to speeds faster than commonly available in the United States, will reach three-quarters of the population within the next ten years.  New Zealand has discarded the “wait around for the private sector” approach, which has left the country with stiflingly slow and heavily capped broadband at high prices.  Instead, it will create an open access fiber optic network on which private providers can compete and offer consumers the speeds they desire.  Communications and Information Technology Minister Steven Joyce issued a statement explaining why the government was getting involved:

Private sector companies have decided, on behalf of their shareholders and as a commercial decision, not to invest in a nationwide network of fibre-to-the-home at this point in time.  The government understands this, and so wishes to assist and work with the private sector in improving the business case for ultra-fast broadband.

The government is also getting involved in order to encourage the provision of widespread open access dark fibre services, which will facilitate the best possible competition outcomes in emerging markets and encourage innovation in wholesale and retail services.

For residents in 33 communities across the country targeted for access to the new network, it cannot come soon enough.  For many of them the most important issue, even beyond speed, is an end to what one Henderson resident called “the current crap called ‘data caps.’”

“The speed of the broadband is meaningless compared to the tiny data caps involved.  On the current slow broadband, I use up my 50GB data cap 12-15 days into the month.  Ultra fast broadband would only be useful with no data caps involved, because the existing broadband speed is twice as fast as the cap already,” Lucy in Auckland told the New Zealand Herald.

Rose in Glenfield agrees:

“We have a 20GB data cap that we chew through in about 10-14 days, and then we are stuck on 64kbps or we have to pay another $30 for another 20GB to get through the rest of the month. When are they going to address these kinds of issues,” she asks.

New Zealand has seen the impact of Internet Overcharging schemes for years.  Providers originally introduced ‘data caps’ to reduce the usage on their networks, but have since relied on them, and consumption billing also as a way to collect revenue.  Most residential customers endure usage caps of 20-50GB per month.  After that, some providers dramatically reduce their connections to just above dial-up speed, while others have found new revenue by charging customers $2/GB or more in overlimit penalties and fees.  Some offer additional usage allotments, but at high prices, such as $30 for 20GB of additional usage.

The result has been a dramatically lower adoption of broadband in New Zealand, and many don’t think it’s worth the money.

John Rutter in Howick suggests speed is secondary to dealing with the issue of loathed usage caps.

“I like the idea of a ultra-fast broadband investment initiative but I hope Internet service providers like Vodafone, Slingshot, and Orcon will provide unlimited Internet soon. Unlimited Internet should come first, then ultra-fast broadband,” he said.

The government has received public support for its broadband initiative.  The public benefit is a much faster “public highway” on which private providers can offer service to individual customers.  By constructing a fast pipeline publicly that no provider is willing to provide privately, it creates additional value for consumers who find faster, more reliable service, preferably on better terms.

“Already a number of companies have shown interest in the government’s broadband initiative,” Joyce said in a statement. “It’s time to get on with finding the right partners to build these networks.”

The government “is prepared to accept a less than commercial return” from the partners. It aims to hold less than 25 per cent in the partnered investment vehicles and will resist contributions of more than 50 per cent.

For rural New Zealand, the answer generally won’t come from a fiber-based strategy, Joyce says.  Instead, the government estimates $300 million will be needed from public and private sources for a rural broadband plan.  Significant portions of New Zealand are difficult to reach with traditional broadband networks, and many New Zealand residents in even medium sized outlying towns find themselves on long waiting lists for what service is available.

Steve in Wellington told the Herald “a lot of towns (like Richmond, Tasman and Rolleston – not just remote areas) have issues where due to lack of exchange space many people cannot get broadband or are on ‘port waiting lists’ waiting for ports to become available. I think the main issue should be ensuring access to broadband full stop. Not just faster for those lucky enough to already have it.”

Rural broadband through wireless is one initiative under consideration.  WiMax technology can deliver fast broadband to rural area, often at faster speeds than traditional telephone company DSL in rural communities.

AT&T's Definition of Broadband Suitable for Online Gaming

AT&T’s advocacy of a federal standard for lowest common denominator broadband has struck a nerve in the onling gaming industry.  Stop the Cap! reader Lance noted in a news tip that the gaming industry is unimpressed.

Upset with AT&T’s suggestion that the Federal Communications Commission should accept a definition of broadband service that is merely suitable for basic web browsing and e-mail service, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), a trade group for the gaming industry, fired off a letter last week opposing AT&T’s bare bones approach to broadband speed and service:

AT&T argued that the baseline definition of broadband should not include what it characterized as “aspirational broadband services” and “myriad sophisticated applications:’ including streaming video, real-time voice, and “real-time, two-way gaming.” It urged the Agency to focus on more “meaningful” services, such as email, web surfing, interacting with Internet-based government services, and online education and training. According to AT&T, these are more pressing concerns for those who do not have terrestrial broadband access currently.

ESA agrees that such services are important. We disagree that the definition should stop there. Americans deserve a higher benchmark. Online video games are a meaningful part of our participative culture. They remove geographic barriers, connecting people from across the country and around the world. They teach cooperation, cultivate leadership skills, and empower users to express their creatiVity. Increasingly, games are used for training purposes and to educate students about complex social issues. Entertaining does not mean trivial.

What AT&T describes as aspirational services are no less important to the future of the Internet than email and web browsing were to the past and are today. Whatever definition of broadband the FCC adopts, it should use a benchmark that opens the potential of the Internet to all Americans. Ultimately, consumers should determine what applications and services they find to be of value.

The ESA has a lot to learn when it comes to the broadband industry allowing consumers to determine what they want from their broadband service.  This is an industry that has several players that do not listen to their customers.  Instead, it engages in PR and astroturf lobbying campaigns to try and convince customers to accept the industry’s own agenda — higher pricing, less “abuse” of their networks, no government oversight or regulation, limited competition, and control of as much content (and the wires that content travels across) as feasible.

The type of gaming consumers expect from their broadband connection.

The ESA should not be surprised by AT&T’s desire to define broadband at the barest of minimum speeds.  AT&T still owns an enormous network of copper telephone wiring.  In rural areas, broadband service definitions based on the lowest speeds are tailor-made for the older phone system capable of delivering only slow speed DSL to consumers.  To define broadband at higher speeds would force AT&T to invest in upgrading its current infrastructure, particularly in rural communities.

Ars Technica ponders the question of whether online gaming is in fact “necessary” to consider when defining a broadband standard, and delves into a discussion about gaming and its value to society.  That misses more important points to consider:

1. With a broadband industry trying to design a broadband standard that is only capable of reasonably serving web pages, e-mail, and other low bandwidth applications commonplace a decade ago, will embracing mediocre broadband speeds help or hurt the United States and the increasingly important digital economy?  How many jobs have been created in new business start-ups that depend on leveraging a robust broadband platform in the United States?  What impact does a “go slow” approach have on American competitiveness and standing in an increasingly wired world?
2. What impact will this industry’s increased noise about Internet Overcharging schemes have on the online gaming landscape?  While many current games don’t use much data transmitting game moves back and forth during play, the software and its add-ons and updates can easily contribute to a bigger broadband bill when users update.  Even more relevant are the trials for the next generation online gaming services like OnLive, which consume considerable amounts of bandwidth from the moment game play begins.  The ESA would do well not to only consider the implications of slow, mediocre broadband service.  It should also consider the very real threat a heavily usage capped or overpriced consumption billing scheme would have on their future.  Will consumers play games that bring them ever closer to a monthly usage cap, or start a billing meter running the moment play begins?

This website is run on a voluntary and non-profit basis.  Our ability to reach you, the reader, comes as a benefit of an open and free Internet.  I can criticize and speak my mind openly and freely even about my own Internet Service Provider, because on today’s Internet the gatekeeper is your own motivation to write and publish content, and the motivation of the reader to consume it.

In the last few years, some Internet Service Providers have argued it is time to change this winning formula.  They are upset that groups and businesses are creating and distributing content over “their wires” without “paying a portion of the costs for those wires.”  No matter that you and I already pay those costs when we sign up for service with that provider.  Now they want content providers to be willing to pony up money to be assured that their content will reach you, the customer.  Don’t agree to pay?  They can’t guarantee your content won’t be slowed to a crawl by too many outside groups trying to use “their pipes for free” and you and I will be left with Internet service that provides super fast connections to those that pay, and a whole lot of waiting around to access those that don’t.

There is bipartisan support for the just introduced Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009. It would finally make Net Neutrality the law. It’s urgently needed during this time of provider bad behavior, from Internet Overcharging schemes to efforts to control broadband content distribution. Our friends at SaveTheInternet have a petition to sign, but it’s also important to reach out directly to your member of Congress and tell them to support H.R. 3458. It protects the Internet as we know and love it today.

(Courtesy: Lab squad)

The broadband stimulus package advocated by the Obama Administration may become a feeding frenzy for waste, fraud, and abuse.  That’s the attitude of several public interest groups concerned about how public tax dollars are being used to study, map, construct, and deploy broadband networks to reach the underserved, and those without any broadband service at all.

Now the story has drawn the attention of the Associated Press’ technology reporter Peter Svensson, who along with Joelle Tessler, have written a piece exploring just where American taxpayer dollars are going on broadband mapping.

The $787 billion stimulus bill championed by the Obama administration set aside up to $350 million to create a national broadband map that could guide policies aimed at expanding high-speed Internet access. That $350 million tag struck some people in the telecommunications industry as excessive, compared with existing, smaller efforts. The map won’t even be done in time to help decide where to spend much of the $7.2 billion in stimulus money earmarked for broadband programs.

Svensson and Tessler talked to a variety of industry experts, as well as companies that often find themselves at a major disadvantage when trying to bid for mapping funds and discover the lowest bid for the best work isn’t always the determining factor.

The consensus is that the government is at risk for overspending up to 90% of the money set aside for mapping, and has vastly overestimated the actual costs:

Rory Altman, director at telecommunications consulting firm Altman Vilandrie & Co., which has helped clients map broadband availability in some areas, said $350 million was a “ridiculous” amount of money to spend on a national broadband map.

Even $100 million might be high. The firm could create a national broadband map for $3.5 million, and “would gladly do it for $35 million,” Altman said.

More concerning is the fact that some of the interests that have successfully won mapping contracts are infested with self-interested telecommunications company executives who have a vested interest in steering the findings of the mapping projects, as well as defending common industry practices of withholding data for “customer privacy” and “competitive” reasons.  Allowing the telecommunications industry to provide the raw data (considerably redacted), a practice defended by telecommunications executives sitting on the boards of some mapping firms winning bids, is a recipe for the production of industry-favorable maps.

Public Knowledge, a public interest group, has been particularly critical of broadband mapping strategies, essential to measuring the current availability and very definition of what is broadband service in the United States.  Art Brodsky, communications director of the group, has reported extensively on the issue for months.

Art Brodsky, for Public Knowledge:

It would be a shame if the stimulus mapping/grant program and the broadband plan were considered in isolation, because they are, together, pieces of the same puzzle. Certainly the telephone and cable industries are considering them together, and using the leverage on one to influence the other to reach the inevitable conclusion that no new broadband policies are needed and that everything will be just fine if we leave the companies in control. Ignore our slumping world rankings for broadband. Ignore the lack of choice. Let’s try to connect the dots into a long silver thread.

The first dot is broadband mapping. If the maps show there is no problem with broadband coverage, then there should be no need for legislation, regulation or any other policies that would immediately be branded a “solution in search of a problem” by the telecom industries. Connected Nation plays a key role here, because their maps will be constructed in at least a dozen states, perhaps more, under the broadband stimulus plan.

Unfortunately, the way the stimulus mapping program is going, that piece is falling nicely into place. By agreeing to the telephone and cable industry’s request – some might say caving into the industry’s demand – that broadband speeds not be reported, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) opened the door for all kinds of mischief. In public comments, NTIA officials said such an agreement was necessary to gain the cooperation of the telephone and cable companies. That’s one way to look at it. Another way is that by requiring the carriers to report broadband speeds – even if their reports were inaccurate – at least there would be something on the record that could be corrected, criticized or cited. Without speed data, the value of the program diminishes. Even under the old rules, all the carriers had to show was “advertised” speeds, so the carriers started advertising. The speeds agreed to by NTIA as “broadband” in the first place are relatively slow anyway.

Mark Seifert, oversees the broadband grant and mapping programs at the NTIA defends the spending proposals by the federal government.  Seifert told the AP that since much of the data will come from the providers’ themselves, NTIA plans to “independently verify” the veracity of the data it receives, which he claims could include door-to-door verification with individual residents and other unspecified verification procedures.

Meanwhile, critics of some of the industry-connected broadband mapping efforts say the groundwork may be laid for future challenges by the nation’s largest broadband providers (large telephone and cable companies) who almost uniformly avoided participating in the first round of stimulus grant applications.

Michael Tattersall, founder of the mapping company Stratsoft is concerned.  He told Public Knowledge incomplete or false map data could be used by providers to have other groups’ stimulus applications thrown out.

If the maps show there is more coverage in rural areas than there actually is, then Tattersall said, the “smaller, in-state broadband providers that are applying for funds that will be directly affected by the quality and integrity of state-commissioned broadband maps.” There could be challenges by the larger carriers, which didn’t apply for stimulus funds, to broadband grants from smaller rural, municipal or neighborhood based on already existing Connected Nation maps.

Disqualified applications based on discredited map data could throw the entire stimulus program into doubt, allowing telecommunications lobbyists for the big providers to argue the stimulus program is a failure and needs to be started over, with recommendations those large providers get the bulk of the money.

Indeed, several providers are already concerned with the prospect that stimulus funds could be used to bring competition to their areas — start-ups and projects funded by government money that could eventually directly compete against their existing offerings, designated as too slow or backwards for 21st century broadband.

With providers already trying to downplay expectations for what defines fast, robust broadband, it leaves incumbent providers keeping their communities in a perpetual slow lane in a much better position not to stick out like a sore thumb.  Brodsky again:

In addition to using the maps, telecom carriers are also trying to freeze the idea of advancing broadband into what exists today.

AT&T led the charge on this, in a remarkable filing that would, in essence, freeze broadband where it is now because that’s what the stimulus law directs the FCC to do when it formulates a broadband plan. AT&T said, “In other words, the definition of broadband must comprise services that can practicably be deployed in unserved and underserved areas—and must comprise services that today’s unserved Americans can and will actually adopt.”