Almost two years to the day Frontier Communications quietly introduced language in its customer agreements providing a monthly broadband usage allowance of just 5GB per month, the company has quietly removed that language from its terms and conditions.

The 5GB usage allowance was deemed generous by Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter.  Frontier claimed most of its 559,300 broadband subscribers (2008 numbers) consumed less than 1.5 gigabytes per month.  But news of the cap angered customers anyway, particularly in their biggest service area — Rochester, N.Y.  In fact, Frontier’s usage cap was what sparked the launch of Stop the Cap! in the summer of 2008.

While never universally enforced against the company’s DSL customers, Frontier has used that portion of its acceptable use policy to demand up to $250 a month from some “heavy users” in Mound, Minn.

Frontier’s usage limit language also played a role in a major controversy in April, 2009 when Time Warner Cable planned usage limits of their own for western New York customers already faced with Frontier’s 5GB usage limit.

The phone company used Time Warner’s planned usage cap as a marketing tool to switch to Frontier DSL service.

Frontier used Time Warner Cable's usage cap experiment against them in this ad to attract new customers in the spring of 2009.

This website has pounded Frontier for two years over its continued use of the 5GB language as part of its broadband policies.  We raised the issue with several state regulatory bodies as part of Frontier’s purchase of Verizon landlines in several states.  Several state utility commissions raised the usage cap issue with Frontier as a result, deeming it negative for rural broadband customers who would effectively endure rationed broadband service from a de facto monopoly provider.

We also criticized Frontier for promoting its MyFitv service, little more than a website containing Google ads and embedded videos already available on Hulu, while not bothering to tell its customers use of that service on a regular basis would put them perilously close to their 5GB allowance.

In the end, Frontier itself denied they would strictly enforce the 5GB limit, making its continued presence in the company’s terms and conditions illogical.

Now, the company has returned to the earlier language it formerly used, reserving the right to shut you off if you use the service excessively or abusively.  This resembles similar language from most broadband providers.  While not absolute in defining those terms, Frontier doesn’t commit to a specific number either.  Today’s “generous usage allowance” is tomorrow’s “rationing.”

If Frontier cuts off customers for using only a handful of gigabytes a month, deeming it excessive, we want to know about it.

Stop the Cap! opposes all Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, speed throttles, and so-called “consumption billing.”  We believe such limits retard the growth and potential of broadband service and are unwarranted when considering the ongoing decline in costs to provide the service.  We do not oppose providers dealing with customers who create major problems on their networks, but believe those issues are best settled privately between the company and the individual customer.

Providers must also be honest in recognizing that broadband is a dynamic medium.  They have a responsibility to grow their networks to meet demand, especially at current pricing which provides major financial returns for those offering the service.  We also believe broadband tiers should be limited to speed, not consumption.  Customers with higher data demands will naturally gravitate towards higher-priced, faster-speed tiers, providing higher revenue to offset the minimal costs of moving data back and forth.

Broadband customers will be loyal to the providers that treat them right.  We applaud Frontier Communications for finally removing the last vestiges of its infamous 5GB usage allowance.  Hopefully, going forward, Frontier will spend its time, energy and money improving its broadband service instead of trying to convince customers to use less of it.

Opelika residents who cast votes in Tuesday’s special referendum on cable competition delivered a decisive “yes” to city officials seeking to build a fiber to the home cable and broadband system in the city.

Although the turnout was just 18 percent, 62 percent of residents voting voted for the system’s construction, 38 percent said “no.”

For most of the supporters of the project, it was about delivering a resounding message to Charter Cable that their days of endless rate increases and sub-standard service in eastern Alabama were over.

Opelika mayor Gary Fuller was excited by the outcome of the vote.

“It’s a great day for Opelika. It’s a great day for our future. It’s a terrible day for Charter,” he told a crowd waiting to hear the mayor’s reaction to the results of the special referendum.

The Opelika Auburn News captured some of the remarks from Opelika Mayor Gary Fuller announcing the results of the referendum.  (4 minutes)

Fuller has been complaining about the lack of cable and broadband competition in Opelika for years, noting residents regularly complain about Charter Cable’s prices and service.

Fuller

Part of the drive to look for alternatives may have come from watching a cable overbuilder, Knology, installing a $20 million fiber network down the road in nearby Auburn.

While Knology does compete with existing cable providers in many cities, it often takes years for the company to deliver service to every residence, if ever.  In fact, Knology is most commonly found in multi-dwelling units like apartment buildings, condos, and new housing developments where construction costs are lower.  Fuller proposes to build a network that will serve everyone.  The city will negotiate with companies like Knology to use the new fiber network to provide service to residents.

“I believe that this is the most amazing thing that any of us as elected officials will ever do during our service in the city of Opelika, because of what it will mean to our future especially with high speed Internet that will be a calling card for high paying jobs in new industries for Opelika,” Fuller said.

Charter Cable fought hard to stop the network, but wasn’t always accurate along the way.

Skip James, Charter Communications government relations director, claimed other municipal networks were financial failures.

“It has been repeatedly demonstrated that when cities or municipal-owned power companies enter the video/data/phone business, it usually ends up costing the taxpayers at least twice as much as the consultant had suggested,” James said. “It also has resulted in many municipalities selling off the networks at significant losses or walking away from further operation of the network.

“After the initial system cost, the city has to stay abreast with the competition and changes in the marketplace by investing more money in costly upgrades. This is a high risk of taxpayer money, since the taxpayers are generally not aware that they have the ultimate responsibility for payment and/or default on the huge bonds to build and upgrade the system.”

Of course, many municipal systems are up, running, and profitable for the communities they serve.  Construction delays and costly lawsuits from incumbent providers can delay such projects and boost costs, but since Opelika’s system will be built with revenue bonds, which are paid back through generated revenue, taxpayers cannot be left responsible for payments or defaults.

James could not understand why the city would want such a network when Charter was already serving the community.

“Our communications system is in front of almost every house and business in the city of Opelika,” James said. “Why would the city want to risk so much taxpayer dollars and go into this much debt when a network already exists that can provide services the customers want at a much lesser cost?”

Opelika residents who wanted an alternative to Charter may have just voted their answer.

City officials will seek bids for construction work in the near future.  Operations will be run by Alabama Light and Power.

There were a total of 2,819 ballots cast. Here’s how they broke down according to ward:

• Ward 1: 211 yes, 54 no
• Ward 2: 236 yes, 86 no
• Ward 3: 368 yes, 333 no
• Ward 4: 443 yes, 228 no
• Ward 5: 492 yes, 368 no
• Absentee ballots: 14 yes, 7 no

WTVM in Columbus, Georgia covered the story of Opelika’s journey to build their own fiber network.  (5 minutes)

Charter Communications, the cable success story that wasn’t, wants consumers in Opelika, Alabama to believe their cable system is better by the last mile than any fiber-to-the-home system around.

Residents of Opelika are voting today on a referendum to allow the city to finance the construction of a true fiber to the home network for residents and businesses across the area.  They are up against cable industry opposition and a small group of vocal citizens who oppose the project on political grounds.

Charter Cable, still dusting itself off from bankruptcy reorganization, told Fierce Telecom that their hybrid coaxial-fiber cable system was actually better than an all-fiber network.

What’s most interesting here is Charter’s stance that their HFC network, which would also include fiber, is more resilient than an all-fiber last mile network. “This delivery system keeps the cost down for residential customers while supplying direct fiber optic connections to businesses requiring the maximum bandwidth available nationally,” said Skip James, government relations director for Charter Communications. “If a coaxial cable is damaged by traffic accidents or excavation procedures, it can be repaired rather quickly, whereas a damaged fiber optic cable will take hours or days to repair, depending on the scenario.”

Obviously fiber cuts can happen with cable networks too, and this kind of argument is an about face for cable operators, who are usually busy trying to convince people that fiber and cable are largely indistinguishable.

Opelika’s network capabilities will be readily apparent once consumers realize a fiber to the home system can easily deliver the same upstream and downstream speeds, something Charter Cable can never offer on its network.  Fiber is also near-infinitely upgradeable, while cable systems are forced to take away analog channels from customers to make room for services that are already provided on most true fiber networks.

The implications of the deal between Google and Verizon were colorfully explored on last Thursday's 'Countdown With Keith Olbermann' on MSNBC.

A progressive group has collected more than 300,000 signatures protesting talks between Google and Verizon to establish a “separate peace” on Net Neutrality while throwing the rest of America’s open Internet under the bus.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee joined forces with groups like MoveOn.org, Color of Change, Free Press, and Credo Action to launch an emergency petition to Google to get them to back away and rethink their deal with Verizon.

A package containing the signatures was delivered to Google’s offices in Washington, but another trip may be necessary as the group claims it has collected nearly 50,000 additional signatures since Monday.

The groups are calling for strong Net Neutrality policies to be enacted and enforced to preserve the open Internet.

Support for Net Neutrality comes from a diverse mix of Americans, from Barry Diller, who founded Fox Broadcasting to progressive MSNBC host Keith Olbermann.

Free Press’ Josh Silver appeared on Thursday’s edition of MSNBC’s Countdown With Keith Olbermann to explore the implications of a non-Net Neutral Internet.  (7 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Why Diller pushes for net neutrality 7-27-10.flv

CNN talked with Fox Broadcasting founder and media mogul Barry Diller about his strong support for Net Neutrality. (4 minutes)

Phillip Dampier to Chairman Genachowski - Don't Be Verizon's Sucker

Julius Genachowski was played.

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission hopefully just learned a valuable lesson about the corporations he’s dealing with.  Big telecom companies will be your friend and working partner until they get close enough to stick you with their knives.

Genachowski got it right in the back, betrayed by the companies he shepherded into secret backroom talks, ostensibly to find a non-regulatory solution to Net Neutrality.  While talks were underway, a few major players were quietly stalling for time to construct their own “private agreement” on Net Neutrality, threatening to up end the FCC’s Net Neutrality agenda into the toilet.  The rest were never really interested in anything less than total capitulation on the concept of Net Neutrality (I’m talking to you, AT&T).

And the merry-go-round goes round and round….

The FCC chairman was outmaneuvered from day one, even as he was willing to ignore his biggest supporters who believed he was honest about an open, pro-consumer FCC.

Stop the Cap! reader Dave noted the secret backroom talks between the bully boys and the FCC chairman’s chief of staff Ed Lazarus had collapsed late last week.  Extraordinary pressure from ordinary Americans helped torpedo those talks, as did the realization some of the participants were dealing behind the backs of their hosts.

Now that Verizon and Google have accomplished their Judas moment, the chairman of the FCC is just a tad angry in the papers:

“Any deal that doesn’t preserve the freedom and openness of the internet for consumers and entrepreneurs will be unacceptable,” Genachowski said at a recent press conference.

Some of Genachowski’s allies at the FCC hinted they were hardly surprised at the developments.

Commissioner Michael J. Copps has been around long enough to know better.  He was skeptical negotiations would deliver more than lip service and he was right.  With today’s announcement of a partnership on policy between Google and Verizon, Copps remained unimpressed, and issued a terse reaction:

“Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That’s one of its many problems. It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations.”

Maybe it’s time for Chairman Genachowski to listen more to fellow commissioners like Mr. Copps and less time trying to negotiate with Verizon and AT&T.

It’s near impossible to find a consumer group not on big telecom’s payroll that likes any of these recent developments.  Their consistent message — stop trusting big corporations with America’s Internet future.  Do your job, stand up for Net Neutrality, and don’t cave in.

Public Knowledge: Google Sold You Out

Since late last year, we’ve been pushing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to place its authority to protect broadband consumers on firm legal ground. But faced with pressure from the largest cable and telephone companies, the agency has failed to act. Who is filling the void left by the FCC? Some of the world’s largest corporations.

Late last week, news broke that a traffic management agreement had been reached between Google and Verizon. This agreement would, among other things, allow Verizon to prioritize applications and content at whim over its mobile broadband network. In the absence of clear FCC authority, we can expect to see more deals like this in the near term. The largest telephone and cable companies and the largest web companies will carve up the Internet as they see fit, deciding who gets access to the Internet’s fast lane while the rest of us are stuck in the slow lane.

We’ve reached a critical crossroads—the time for FCC action is NOW. Private negotiations with industry players have failed. Public concern has reached a fever pitch. And some of the largest corporations on the web are lining up to put an end to the open Internet as we know it. The course of action couldn’t be more clear: the FCC needs to do the right thing and protect broadband users.

Free Press: Google – Don’t Be Evil

“Google and Verizon can try all they want to disguise this deal as a reasonable path forward, but the simple fact is this framework, if embraced by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission, would transform the free and open Internet into a closed platform like cable television. This is much worse than a business arrangement between two companies. It’s a signed-sealed-and-delivered policy framework with giant loopholes that blesses the carving up of the Internet for a few deep-pocketed Internet companies and carriers.

“If codified, this arrangement will lead to toll booths on the information superhighway. It will lead to outright blocking of applications and content on increasingly popular wireless platforms. It would give companies like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T the right to decide which content will move fast and which should be slowed down. And it will destroy the open Internet as a platform for small business innovation and job creation, cementing companies’, like Google’s, dominant market power online.

“Still worse, this deal proposes to keep the FCC from making rules at all. Instead of an even playing field for everyone, it proposes taking up complaints on a case-by-case basis, or even leaving it up to third-party industry groups to decide what the rules should be. The only good news is that neither of these companies is actually in charge of writing the rules that govern the future of the Internet. That is supposed to be the job of our leaders in Washington.

“Congress and the FCC should reject Verizon and Google’s plans to carve up the Internet for the private benefit of deep-pocketed special interests, and move forward with policies that preserve the open Internet for all. This begins with the FCC reasserting its authority over broadband to ensure it can protect the open Internet and promote universal access to affordable, world-class quality broadband.

“The Internet is one of our nation’s most important resources, and policymakers everywhere should recognize that the future of our innovation economy is far too important to be decided by a backroom deal between industry giants.” — Free Press Political Adviser Joel Kelsey (See more here.)

Newspapers  Say ‘Enough is Enough’

The San Francisco Chronicle

[...]Public interest and consumer groups didn’t feel like they had much of a say in the commission’s discussions, and they surely won’t feel like they had much of a say in whatever proposal Google and Verizon bring to the table. This is a huge problem – the future of the Internet belongs to the public, not just a few companies.

The ideal solution would be for Congress to step in and provide a framework for net neutrality – preferably one that keeps the public interest at heart, not the demands of dominant Internet companies and carriers.

That’s what the commission would prefer. It’s considering getting around the breakdown in negotiations by reclassifying broadband under a more heavily regulated part of telecommunications law, but the large cable and telephone companies will almost certainly sue. Congressional action would prevent this ugly scenario and its uncertain outcome.

And any proposal that Google and Verizon come up with will have to be approved by Congress. It would certainly serve the public interest better if Congress gathered input from more than just two companies and created a proposal of its own.

Unfortunately, Congress hasn’t shown much appetite for net neutrality legislation in the past, and we’re not optimistic about the near-term future. So it’s time for the commission to do the right thing and reclassify broadband.

Yes, that will mean lawsuits. It will mean that net neutrality has a precarious future. But it has a precarious future right now, and the public can’t afford to wait.

The Los Angeles Times

[...]Genachowski is right about the need for enforceable rules that prevent broadband providers from blocking or slowing access to websites and services they don’t favor. So far there have been only a few such incidents on DSL and cable-modem networks. But Internet service providers are itching to create a toll lane to deliver content and services from companies that have the resources to pay for better access to consumers. If that toll lane crowds out the free and open Internet that’s been a breeding ground for innovation and creativity, the whole economy will suffer.

[...]A major problem for the commission is that its authority to adopt such rules isn’t clear. Genachowski had hoped that the talks with Internet service providers and Web companies would yield a consensus on a bill Congress could quickly pass to grant the FCC clear but limited authority over broadband access. The breakdown of those talks complicates matters, and suggests that Genachowski may have to rethink his plan to enforce Net neutrality by bringing 21st century broadband providers under rules originally designed for 20th century telephone services. Whatever route it takes, though, the commission should move now.

Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks show explains the implications of Google & Verizon’s deal for both progressives and conservatives if big corporations get to take control of America’s Internet.  (6 minutes)

Despite some denials last week that Verizon and Google were not married and cohabitating their political agendas, the two giants announced a shared vision of the Internet’s future — one that does not “purposely throttle or block content,” but reserves for themselves a new, super speed Internet for the two companies and their closest corporate friends that will make blocked websites the least of America’s broadband problems.

For Internet enthusiasts, the deal is nothing less than a complete sellout of one of the founding visions of the Internet – content judged on its merits, not on the deep pockets backing it.  It’s a complete betrayal of Net Neutrality and broadband reform by Google, which has some of the deepest pockets around and has apparently forgotten the story of its own founding — a story that would likely be impossible on an Internet envisioned by Big V & G.

The Five Biggest Lies About Google and Verizon’s Net Neutrality Proposal

Big Lie #1: “For the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.”

That is a distinction no longer worth the difference should the two providers succeed in developing a special fast lane for their content partners.  If you don’t have the admission price or a favored pass to belong to the golden magic superhighway, not being purposely blocked or throttled on a clogged free lane offers little comfort when your start-up cannot compete with the bully boys that can outspend you into submission.

Both companies seek to invest millions in what is essentially a toll highway, incentivized by the potential returns offered by deep pocketed content producers willing to pay the toll.  With Wall Street following that money, those left behind on the slow lanes will find providers increasingly uninterested in throwing good money into necessary upgrades to keep the “free lane” humming.  The Internet that results will resemble the difference between a Chicago public housing project and the Ritz-Carlton.

Big Lie #2: “Reasonable” Network Management

The partnership’s declaration of support for its definition of  “reasonable” traffic management has more loopholes than Lorraine Swiss cheese.  For instance, “reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network to ensure quality service” for consumers already exists.  It’s called “upgrading your network.”  Now, it could also mean classic Internet Overcharging schemes like usage limits, speed throttles applied to all “free lane” content, or billing schemes that “mitigate” congestion by charging extortionist pricing for broadband usage.  Using vague notions of “accepted standards” could be defined by any group deemed by Google and Verizon to be “recognized.”  Both have enough money to influence the very definition of “accepted standards.”

You don’t need a policy that reads like a credit card agreement to manage traffic on a well-managed, consistently upgraded broadband network.  Nothing prevents either company from providing such a network, but with no oversight and pro-consumer reform, nothing compels them to provide it either.

Big Lie #3: This preserves the open Internet.*

(*- excluding wireless broadband access to the Internet.)  As an increasing number of consumers seek to migrate some of their Internet usage to wireless networks, it’s more than a little unsettling Google and Verizon would exempt these networks from most of the “consumer protections” they have on offer.

Big Lie #4: The FCC gets its coveted authority to oversee the Internet.

Not really.  In fact, this agreement shares more in common with corporate interests that want less regulation and oversight, not more.  The suggested framework graciously grants the FCC the right to sit and listen to complaints, but strips away… permanently… any authority to pass judgment on the cases they hear and write regulations to stop abuses.

Clauses like “parties would be encouraged to use non-governmental dispute resolution processes” must give the arbitration industry new hope.  Already out of favor in many quarters, this proposal is tailor-made to bring a new Renaissance for “out of court arbitration” that heavily favors the companies that bind consumers and other aggrieved parties to using it.  The arbitration industry is no stranger to contributing to the right people to make them the only reasonable choice for dispute resolution.

Verizon and Google want nothing less than the right to define how their Internet will work — from the applications you can effectively use, the speed throttle you are forced to endure on the free lane, to the enormous bill you’ll receive for using those non-favored websites.

Big Lie #5: Google in 2006 — “Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can’t pay.”

Google has come a long way, baby — in the wrong direction.  Demanding Google “not be evil,” something hundreds of thousands of Americans have already said today, is becoming so commonplace as to be cliché.  Still, being for Net Neutrality one day and throwing that concept overboard the next is the ultimate flip-flop.  When money talks louder than doing right by the millions of users who made both companies what they are today represents the ultimate betrayal.  Let’s make sure they realize it.

Bloomberg News reports consumers will be stuck with higher broadband bills, especially if they dare to watch online video, on a broadband platform envisioned to saddle Americans with toll highways for Internet content.  (4 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Google Joint Internet Policy 8-9-10.flv

CNBC echoed concerns about the Verizon-Google deal and its implications for the future of Internet applications.  (4 minutes)

Read the Verizon-Google Proposed Framework below the jump…

… Continue Reading

Citizens of Opelika, Beware!  Your city government wants to take over control of your appliances, censor and control the Internet, and plant the red flag of socialism at the new Kremlin building — the Opelika City Hall on South 7th Street.

Welcome to another classic battle against municipal broadband competition.  All of the usual players have assembled, and the opposition has a overstuffed bag full of tricks — many old, some new, to convince Opelika that bringing additional cable competition to the region is just the worst thing… ever.

The proposal: to spend $33 million dollars, financed by revenue bonds (not taxpayers), to build a fiber to the home platform to deliver 21st century broadband service and competition to incumbent, recently-bankrupt Charter Cable.  The city of Opelika itself would probably not get into the cable business directly.  It proposes to work with Knology, a credible cable overbuilder already providing cable and broadband services in Alabama, to manage the day to day operations and handle customers.

Why: (from the City of Opelika website) “For many years now – not only during Mayor Gary Fuller’s Administration, but during Barbara Patton’s Administration before him and even Mayor Freeman’s administration before her – numerous complaints were received from citizens about the high prices and poor service they were receiving, while others have complained that they can’t get any cable service in their neighborhoods at all.  After years of trying to get other cable/Internet providers to come into Opelika and give Charter Communications competition – to no avail – we decided that the best way to give our citizens competitive services was to offer competition ourselves.”  No surprises there.  Large cable operators have never challenged one another in their respective markets.  Why ruin a good thing by launching a price and services war?

The vote: A referendum on the question will be held this Tuesday, asking citizens to support the project.

Opposition to the project from some quarters has bordered on hysteria, especially from a so-called “consumer grassroots group” and a local website, Opelika’s Smart Grid, that has tried to scare residents into believing city officials are on the verge of taking control of residents’ air conditioners and ovens, unleashing Big Brother on a scale even the most paranoid haven’t even considered.

Stop the Cap! investigated the group claiming to represent the citizens of Opelika, and we came away with more questions than we originally asked.

The local media has accepted, without much challenge, the representations made by these groups opposed to the municipal project.  Few questions have been asked about who belongs to the groups and how they are financed.  As Stop the Cap! has seen over the past two years, opposition to municipal broadband projects usually comes from coordinated campaigns — a direct attack by lobbyists for the cable and phone companies, and efforts by political groups to demagogue such projects hoping to pick up citizen opposition on philosophical grounds.  If Americans for Prosperity, the Heartland Institute, Digital Society, or FreedomWorks is involved, you’ve got political astroturf in action.  Since many of these political groups are on the payroll of phone and cable operators, it’s just one more way to achieve the same thing — protection for America’s broadband duopoly.

Who is “Opelika’s Smart Grid” and the Concerned Citizens of Opelika?

Stop the Cap! has researched both “groups” and discovered they are essentially one and the same.  Some of the members of “Concerned Citizens” are also the authors, and primary participants on “The Opelika Smart Grid” website.  They are strongly anti-government, and their opposition to municipal services borders at times on the paranoid.  Neither group has more than a handful of loosely-associated members, but they do bring along those who share a common, mostly Libertarian/anti-government philosophy.  Think “tea parties against municipal broadband.”

Domain name records show the website was first registered July 4th, 2010 by William Mayfield who lives on 9th Street in Opelika.  Mayfield’s concern about the project’s capability to deliver “smart grid” technology to the local electricity provider prompted him to launch into some pretty far-out conspiracy theories about the implications of the project (taken from Google web cache):

The so-called smart-grid is a government controlled power and information distribution system that combines and monitors the activities of internet, phone and power usage of the customer.  This is the vision of socialists like Al Gore and would be a huge step forward for the watching “big brother”. We need to fight this very hard, very quickly.

[...]In government speak motivate = force. And if they determine that you are not worthy of receiving power for whatever reason, like being a reformed Christian, I can assure you they’ll find authority in the “Patriot Act ” to turn your lights out. While this may sound like borderline paranoid ramblings, keep in mind that history shows that the state always takes every chance to increase its power and ultimately uses that power against its own people. Let’s don’t give them the opportunity here.

Mayfield’s tentative writings on his Citizen 10/Limits on Government blog didn’t stay public for long.  That blog has since gone private and is now unavailable without an invitation.

Privacy is a major concern, not just for Mayfield, but for virtually all of these “concerned citizens” online.  Almost nobody is willing to divulge their real names.  In fact, very little about who backs and runs these groups has been disclosed.

Jack Mazzola claims to be a member of Concerned Citizens of Opelika and has become a de facto spokesman in the local press.  He claims he is “30 years old and have been a resident of Opelika for almost two years.” During that time, he evidently forgot to update his active Facebook page, which lists his current city of residence as Atlanta, Georgia.  Suspicious readers of the local newspaper did some research of their own and claim Mr. Mazzola has no history of real estate or motor vehicle taxes paid to Lee County, which includes Opelika.

The Smart Grid ‘Death Panels-Fear Factor’

Mayfield’s website spends most of its time scaring residents about the implications of municipal fiber as it relates to their electric bills, also ranting about the Kyoto Protocol, carbon footprints, government control of appliances, and socialism generally.  While appealing to anti-government and climate change skeptics, average residents pondering the mayor conspiring to turn off their air conditioners from his office might be a bit too over-the-top, so wild claims about spending increases and municipal broadband failures are included as well.

Most of the arguments made by “The Opelika Smart Grid” website and Concerned Citizens of Opelika obfuscate the larger and more important discussion about municipal broadband.  They have gained plenty of media attention with their claims and accusations, generating considerable controversy that has little to do with the actual proposal.  For cable and phone companies that oppose the project, that represents a gift that keeps on giving.  When city officials and proponents of the project are forced to spend time and energy debating and debunking some of the wilder claims, that’s time lost selling the project and successfully explaining it to constituents.  For many voters, demagoguery breeds doubt and delivers “no” votes.

Ultimately, for most Opelika residents, the real debate is over competition to area cable and phone companies, not whether Big Brother is going to tell you when you can use your hair dryer.

The Very Wrong Arguments Against Municipal Fiber

Mayfield’s website attempts to indict municipal fiber projects with a mix of incomplete storytelling, selective editing, and questionable sourcing.  The larger argument from the group is that municipal fiber projects always fail leaving taxpayers holding the bag.  But the examples provided tell a different story, ranging from ‘comparing apples and oranges,’ condemning systems facing the same financial challenges private providers are coping with during The Great Recession, or even attacking the viability of systems not even operating yet.

Some examples they mention and the part of the story they don’t:

• The systems in Provo and Memphis didn’t serve a single residential customer.  They were commercial service providers only serving business customers;
• The Burlington system got caught up in the banking crisis and is trying to restructure and refinance its operations;
• The attack on the Bristol municipal fiber system comes from The Heartland Institute, a classic political astroturf operation and an outdated 2007 piece from a political blog.
• The system in Davidson has been written about here before — it is not even municipal fiber.  It’s a formerly bankrupt Adelphia cable operation that required substantial rebuilding — spending the same sums Time Warner Cable and Comcast would have spent had they bought it.  The investment now has a chance to pay dividends… for residents, not Time Warner Cable, going forward.

The website even attacks a municipal fiber system in Salisbury, North Carolina that has yet to begin service.  Calling the project a failure is just a bit premature.  The “Smart Grid” folks were hard pressed to find credible sourcing for their attack on Fibrant, but finally settled for some fact-starved nonsense generated from, of all places, the John Locke Society.  What’s next — Atlas Unplugged: Ayn Rand’s Treatise on Synchronous Broadband?  The group attempted to downplay the connection to the John Locke folks by linking to a content aggregator– Scribd, instead.  Now that we’ve mentioned it, they could have credited us as well.

If you are suspicious about the viability of municipal fiber, simply ask yourself if they are such failures, why do phone and cable companies spend millions to lobby against them?  Why the blizzard of scare mailers, robocalls, astroturf opposition groups, and lawsuits — all to stop what many opponents continually claim are competitive and operational failures?

The answer is, most municipal projects, like co-ops and community owned utilities, are more than viable.  Ask the residents of Wilson, North Carolina who are enjoying the benefits of municipal broadband and cable service even if they don’t become customers.  Time Warner Cable didn’t raise rates on the residents of Wilson this year — the only place in the state not to face relentless rate hikes, all because of that community’s municipal provider keeping their competitors honest.  Those who do become customers enjoy far faster and more reliable broadband service than either the cable or phone company provides in the region.

Chattanooga, Tennessee is a lot closer to Opelika than Provo is, yet somehow “The Opelika Smart Grid” website missed the success story of EPB, a municipal provider delivering the fastest broadband service in the southern United States.  Folks in Lafayette, Louisiana have lots of nice things to say about their municipal provider — LUS Fiber, as well.

Who is Paying for All This?

One important clue that astroturf is being rolled over the municipal fiber debate is the lack of public disclosure about who is financing the muni-broadband haters.

Residents vaguely know the state’s cable companies are bankrolling some of the opposition in the media, taking out full page ads attacking the proposal in the local media “paid for by the ACTA.”  It’s up to readers to discern “ACTA” stands for the Alabama Cable Telecommunications Association, the cable industry’s lobbying group in the state.  Full disclosure that isn’t.

As far as “Opelika’s Smart Grid” website and the “Concerned Citizens” group, funding sources are more murky, if only because they go out of their way not to be specific.

Stop the Cap! posted a comment asking some questions about the website’s funding sources and backers as well as questioning some of their information.  Those questions have not been made public, much less answered, despite subsequent comments written after our own submission.  What are they hiding?

Another matter of concern come from the fact these “grassroots” groups have the ability to finance expensive radio ads.  They claim they are paid for by “concerned local citizens.”  That could easily include Charter Cable, the local phone company, or their representatives.  We don’t know because the owners of the website won’t say who those people are.  In a tight economy, would you be handing over hundreds, if not thousands of your hard-earned dollars to fight for Charter Cable and AT&T by paying for radio ads?  The cable and phone companies and their lobbyist friends sure would.

With no disclosure of real names, no direct statement that there is no industry money or involvement in these opposition websites, and way-too-convenient shared sourcing of “facts” with earlier industry “dollar-a-holler” movements, it would be a major mistake to simply give these “groups” or their arguments the benefit of the doubt.

As we’ve repeatedly uncovered in our own reporting, consumers do that at the peril of their wallets, learning only later they were suckered into opposing competition that could deliver significant savings and better service.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski needs another calcium supplement to stand up against powerful broadband interests. Let's send him one.

When citizens get active and get involved, they can make a difference.  That’s true even with giant corporations like Verizon Communications.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has been straying as of late.  In 2009, his nomination to chair the Commission came with a lot of promises he’s now threatening to break with the American people:

• to make the FCC more open and accountable to the public interest;
• to promote and expand broadband to underserved Americans;
• to protest the open Internet with strong Net Neutrality protections.

Genachowski watched Comcast use the federal courts to invalidate much of his agency’s authority over broadband because of flawed policies and bad compromises made by the previous administration.  Providers lived with that arrangement until it inconvenienced them.  Then they sued… and won.

History teaches us that making the same mistakes all over again will bring similar results.

Chairman Genachowski is wrong to think brokering secret, back room deals with major corporate broadband providers will solve America’s broadband issues.  Verizon, AT&T, Google, Comcast, and the other players do not answer to the FCC — they answer to their stockholders and Wall Street.  While corporate deals are struck behind closed doors, it is you and I that face living with the results and we don’t even have a seat at the table.

I, for one, am not interested in living in a broadband gated community with AT&T working the front gate.

Genachowski has apparently forgotten he is supposed to be working for the American people, not for America’s broadband duopoly. Not too long ago, Genachowski’s office hinted it might be prepared to cave on meaningful broadband reform.  Outraged citizens flooded the FCC and told him to grow a spine and stand up for our interests and he followed through announcing broadband reform was finally on the way.

It’s time to send the chairman another calcium supplement:

• Retweet this act.ly petition to demand that Genachowski accounts for his inaction.
• Answer these two questions to get the FCC to work for you and not AT&T.
• Learn more about getting involved in the fight to win Net Neutrality protections.

This fight is far from over.

Verizon and Google have reached an agreement in principle to deal away Net Neutrality protections for American broadband users according to a late report in today’s Washington Post.

Cecilia King writes the agreement is days away from being revealed in public, but two sources verified Verizon and Google have agreed to a split the difference on Net Neutrality — abandoning the open Internet concept for wireless broadband, but protecting against service providers holding bidding auctions over the speed of web content delivery.

Verizon wouldn’t confirm that a deal was struck but said in an e-mail statement:

“We’ve been working with Google for 10 months to reach an agreement on broadband policy. We are currently engaged in and committed to the negotiation process led by the FCC. We are optimistic this process will reach a consensus that can maintain an open Internet and the investment and innovation required to sustain it.”

Specifically, Google and Verizon’s agreement would prevent Verizon from offering paid prioritization to the biggest bidders for capacity on its DSL and fiber networks, according to the sources. But any promises regarding open-Internet access wouldn’t apply to mobile phones, the sources said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the companies have not officially made their announcement.

And Verizon could offer managed services — better quality to some Web sites such as those offering health care services, the sources said. But some analysts speculate that managed services could also include discounted YouTube and other services to FiOS customers at better quality.

Public interest groups, some occasionally accused of being in bed with Google, were outraged at the news.

“The fate of the Internet is too large a matter to be decided by negotiations involving two companies, even companies as big as Verizon and Google, or even the six companies and groups engaged in other discussions at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on similar topics,” said Gigi Sohn, president of public interest group Public Knowledge.

The clear distancing from Google’s settlement illustrates these pro-consumer groups are not simply shilling for Google’s public policy positions.

For Stop the Cap!, the implications are extremely disturbing.  As outlined, this compromise deal would relegate wireless broadband to usage caps, speed throttles, and content blockades indefinitely.  Should “improved quality” service on the wired side be an available option, it could allow the broadband industry to mount a devastating campaign to end would-be competitors, especially to their video businesses.  Cable and phone companies could pick winners and losers (with their products being the winners, and would-be competitors the losers) by prioritizing high quality video services, exempting their partners from Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, and subjecting would-be, “non-preferred” content providers to usage and speed-restricted broadband lines.

Offering preferred content producers discounted rates would also completely change the business models of content distribution and discourage investment in would-be challengers that could provide consumers with other video options.

More importantly, it provides an example of an Obama Administration ruthlessly willing to cut consumers out of the debate about Net Neutrality, while forcing them to live with the results.  King notes the priorities of Google and Verizon don’t exactly include consumers:

According to the sources, Verizon and Google have met separately to reach an agreement they will tout as an example of successful self-regulation. Once bitter opponents in the so-called net neutrality debate, the firms have grown closer on the issue as their business ties have also strengthened. Verizon partners with Google on their Android wireless phones.

Their actions could set a course for the FCC meetings and what ultimately the parties could present to lawmakers, analysts said.

Voluntary self-regulation worked so well with Wall Street banks and the housing market that a disconnected crowd inside the beltway is willing to give it another try with a broadband industry that is already a duopoly for most consumers.  Psychic abilities are not required to guess at the eventual outcome.

Update 12:30pm — The denials are flying over a NY Times piece that claims Google has agreed to pay Verizon’s asking price for prioritized traffic:

Google: “The New York Times is quite simply wrong. We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open internet.”

Verizon: “The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken. It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect.”

We present a week of cable companies acting badly….  They charge you top dollar and leave their cables hanging all over the place.  Learn how homeowners turn in frustration to the media to correct sometimes dangerous installations that are accidents waiting to happen.  Cable Week on Stop the Cap!

Norman Sullivan in Greenville, S.C.,  has lived with low hanging Charter Cable wires for nearly a year.  Despite making at least 10 calls to the cable company with no response, the cable line just keeps drooping lower and lower in his backyard, and Sullivan isn’t even a Charter Cable customer.

Sullivan’s neighbor, Joyce Kirskey, has the same problem and she -is- a Charter Cable customer, but her repeated calls to the cable company didn’t bring a response either.

“If I’m gonna be paying them every month, they’re looking for their money, I want some good service,” Kirksey told WSPA-TV’s Problem Solver.

Even worse than the low-hanging lines is the terrible reception she’s getting in her home.

“My TV has been going in and out, just blinking on and off all the time,” Kirksey said.

When WSPA notified Charter it was about to be featured on the 6 ‘o clock local news, the cable company finally got moving.

By that afternoon, a Charter crew was wandering the neighborhood fixing a variety of cable issues.  Charter apologized to all concerned, claiming it was an isolated incident and would continue working on the problem until it was resolved.

But Sullivan told Channel 7′s Problem Solver they wished Charter had taken care of the problem sooner.

“They are supposed to come out here and do their job, it’s what they’re getting paid for,” Sullivan said.

WSPA-TV in Greenville, S.C., has a Problem Solver segment to help viewers with stubborn problems they can’t resolve themselves.  Watch how the station managed to get Charter Cable out to fix a problem it ignored for nearly a year, despite more than 10 calls to the cable company requesting assistance.  (1 minute)