Subscribe
Phillip Dampier
The Federal Communications Commission has announced the composition of its new Open Internet Advisory Committee to help track and evaluate the effects of the agency’s Net Neutrality policies, but has no member directly representing the interests of consumers.
The OIAC will focus on important Net Neutrality policies like transparency, reasonable network management practices, the differences governing policies for wired and wireless broadband, and issues like usage caps and speed throttling. But there are no voices on the committee that speak directly on behalf of end users — individual customers who use the Internet in their daily lives.
The FCC instead packed the panel with business, social policy and educational interests, many with direct financial ties to large telecommunications companies.
Selected members include:
- Harvey Anderson, Vice President of Business Affairs & General Counsel, Mozilla
- Brad Burnham, Founding Partner, Union Square Ventures
- Alissa Cooper, Chief Computer Scientist, Center for Democracy & Technology
- Leslie Daigle, Chief Internet Technology Officer, Internet Society
- Jessica Gonzalez, Executive Board, Media and Democracy Coalition; Vice President for Policy & Legal Affairs, National Hispanic Media Coalition (representing NHMC)
- Shane Greenstein, Professor and Kellogg Chair of Information Technology, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
- Russell Housley, Chair, Internet Engineering Task Force; Founder of Vigil Security, LLC (representing Vigil Security, LLC)
- Neil Hunt, Chief Product Officer, Netflix
- Charles Kalmanek, Vice President of Research, AT&T
- Matthew Larsen, CEO, Vistabeam
- Kevin McElearney, Senior Vice President for Network Engineering, Comcast
- Marc Morial, President & CEO, National Urban League
- Elaine Paul, Senior Vice President, Strategic Planning, The Walt Disney Company
- Jennifer Rexford, Professor of Computer Science, Princeton University
- Dennis Roberson, Vice Provost & Research Professor, Illinois Institute of Technology (representing T-Mobile)
- Chip Sharp, Director, Technology Policy and Internet Governance, Cisco Systems
- Charles Slocum, Assistant Executive Director, Writers Guild of America, West
- Marcus Weldon, Chief Technology Officer, Alcatel-Lucent
- Michelle Zatlyn, Co-Founder & Head of User Experience, CloudFlare
Missing are the voices of consumers who want an open Internet and do not believe in Comcast and AT&T’s definitions of “reasonable network management” that include Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and overlimit fees.
Consumers will instead have to depend on Internet businesses and institutions that coincidentally share an active dislike of traffic control measures, primarily for their own business reasons.
By excluding the consumer’s voice in policy debates, it is no wonder FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski increasingly seems amenable to the companies he is supposed to independently oversee — spending a considerable amount of time opening industry conventions with keynote speeches, reviewing lobbyist briefs about various communications issues, and talking directly with the corporate leadership of the companies involved. It is disturbingly clear he is listening less and less to consumers. A clear sign of that was his vocal support for the kinds of usage-based Internet pricing schemes that consumers generally loathe.
Genachowski and his staff need to spend more time listening to individual Internet users and the customers of providers and less time attending industry-sponsored events.
The OIAC is a good place to start. Consumers deserve a seat at the table in a debate that will impact every American Internet user.
Other stories of interest:
- Consumer Groups Question FCC Chairman’s Endorsement of Internet Overcharging Schemes
- Internet Overcharging: “The Best Thing That Ever Happened to the Cable Industry”
- AT&T Will Take Your Questions On Broadband Issues
- Top Cable Lobbyist Calls FCC’s Open Internet Proposal License to End Unlimited Internet
- Broadband Hearings Expose Emptiness of Provider Talking Points About Internet Overcharging
I don’t always agree with your points, but I will keep your concerns in mind as I participate in the OIAC meetings. We have had our share of disagreements about UBB, but I am in agreement with many of your other concerns about broadband providers – especially deceptive billing, redlining and forced bundling.
Matt Larsen, Vistabeam
For our readers who are unaware of Vistabeam, it is one of the nation’s independent Wireless ISPs which provide Internet connectivity in rural areas larger providers ignore.
WISPs have some unique challenges that larger providers often lack, and we are sympathetic:
1) They are often family-owned enterprises that find themselves competing against traditional phone companies that often get the benefit of the doubt receiving federal subsidies and low interest loans because they know how to work the grant system to their advantage.
2) The evolving nature of the Internet and the growing amount of video traffic can place strains on wireless networks that require significant investment to expand. But in this economy, loans can be hard to come by when you are not AT&T or Verizon. The result has been traffic management practices like usage caps on a growing number of wireless networks to manage demand until upgrades can be introduced. While we oppose usage caps in general, we do understand the intent of WISPs has not really been to cash in and gouge customers, but rather try and manage their available, often limited resources in smaller markets.
3) Being smaller players, their interests are always threatened in Washington because too often WISPs are ignored by the larger players and politicians. This has also been true in broadband mapping, which does not always account for wireless service providers.
All this being said, we represent end consumers and better broadband for them. Getting the best possible service to consumers is our first priority, and whoever can deliver the best bang for the buck, even if it takes subsidies to provide equitable service in urban and rural areas, is something we believe in.
If WISPs can do it, we’re all for it. If the phone companies push fiber to the home in some areas, we’d be for that. That’s where the debate usually starts — is it fair for a private WISP to have to confront a government-subsidized fiber network as competition. They often say no. We are much less philosophical about that and believe if that fiber network delivers cap-free fast service, that is a better option for consumers.
Matt and I have debated some of these points in the past, and I believe Vistabeam and other WISPs deliver important service in some of the country’s most rural areas. But if something better comes along, I also hope they can find ways to adapt to the changing landscape and have the capacity to upgrade their networks to keep up (even if it takes subsidies, which we’d support.)
That is a very interesting list of people, and yes, I do see there is an absence of what we would call “average users.” Although the “average user” won’t come close to some of the caps, that is quickly changing with streaming service becoming more convenient, this “average consumer” will be nearing these caps, or as Comcast calls it, a tier. I know that I try to watch HD streaming whenever possible, and with my Blockbuster @Home, we stream more each time my employer, Dish, adds more titles to the lineup. Having an all I can watch plan makes this easier to “go over” and who know how much I could be paying in the future. I don’t want my internet provider to force me back into the dark ages.
I’d say we’re already there and have been some time for the “average” user. I was just talking to a co-worker yesterday and he was telling me how he had to cancel his 30 day trial of netflix awhile back because his family of 4 hit their Cable Internet’s 50GB limit after only a few weeks of normal usage plus some pandora music streaming by his daughters.
He doesn’t understand what traffic = a GB, only that he was about to get a bill for double what he pays for his internet currently, something that his family can’t afford on a tight budget.
So what does he do? He pays for the Cable Companies on demand movies @ $3.95 ea., exactly what the caps are designed to do, force customers from cutting the cord and/or using competing services.
He really did like Netflix too, said the library for back shows was great and wanted to be able to continue the service but who can justify paying both netflix and a cable co that’s penalizing usage with $5/gb overage fees on tiny caps.
I had family this month and we hit 986GB of data according to TWC…. I have 4 gaming PCs and we were on them plus I reloaded my HTPC and my Server with Server 2008 R2… needless to say… i was over 300GB off my normal usage of 600GB a month… yes.. 600GB is the norm around here… And no, I’m not downloading the internet… why so much? Netflix, hulu plus, pandora, DI.fm, youtube and mostly gaming… Just like the TWC commercials say… more to do what you like… Too bad the stupid Origin update messed up my BF3, thanks EA…
If you are not running a torrent client, it’s always video that eats that data up. Pandora and gaming really don’t consume much at all in their current iterations.
However, we have new cloud-based gaming services on the way that will truly eat data like never before.
Over here, if I avoid video, it’s easy to stay under 100GB a month. But when Netflix or other video streaming enters the picture, it can consume 100GB easily. I don’t do torrents at all.
We run lots of data intensive services…. I have been with OnLive since they started.. online backup… you name it, we probably have it… I even backup my smartphone to the house.. thanks Spring.. thinking about getting our own domain for the family and running mail service.. lol
[...] FCC Announces Open Internet Advisory Committee With No …May 29, 2012 … Phillip Dampier. The Federal Communications Commission has announced the composition of its new Open Internet Advisory Committee to … [...]
[...] enforce net neutrality regulations. There is a committe that has been formed by the FCC, to have open policy debate on the topic of net neutrality. In the last meeting at Stanford University, the panel focused [...]