Dingell

Rep. John Dingell has told FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to drop broadband reform because the Michigan Democrat has not received a detailed reply to his letter about the matter sent back in May.  The Hill reports Dingell doesn’t like to be kept waiting for responses to his “Dingell-grams.”

“I find it wholly frustrating that Chairman Genachowski, after nearly two months, still has not responded to my questions about the classification of broadband Internet access services,” Dingell said in his letter.

Dingell added that he has “serious concerns about the FCC’s proposed course of action” and that Congress has “intense interest” in Genachowski’s plans.

In his May letter, Dingell had said he doubts Genachowski’s plan despite his support for network neutrality rules, which the FCC hopes to enact under the authority it would gain through its administrative maneuver.

“I feel Chairman Genachowski’s responses to my questions would be invaluable in informing the debate on the matter,” Dingell wrote this week.

He said the FCC should not proceed with Genachowski’s proposal to boost its power over Internet service providers through a regulatory maneuver known as “reclassification.” In his original letter, Dingell expressed “grave concern” that Genachowski’s plan risks reversal by the courts, putting “at risk significant past and future investments, perhaps to the detriment of the Nation’s economic recovery and continued technological leadership,” he wrote at the time.

Dingell’s days of putting his constituents first are well past.  He is the longest currently-serving Congressman and the third longest serving Congressman in the history of the country.  These days, having Washington officials bow before him is a much higher priority.  In a petulant letter sent to the chairman on July 20th, Dingell puts a deadline, in bold, for Genachowski’s reply.

Genachowski is probably wasting paper and time responding, considering Dingell already made public his opposition for broadband reform back in May when he wrote, “I have strong reservations about the course the commission is presently taking.”  Dingell said he’s worried that Genachowski’s proposal would be struck down in court, puts at risk “significant” past and future investments and could even “paralyze” other regulatory initiatives.

The reasons for his opposition amount to little more than concern trolling.  The telecommunications industry already challenges virtually every controversial policy enacted by government in the courts, threatens to slash investment in providing broadband service to those they’ve shown little interest in serving before, and do not deserve credit for “technological leadership” as the United States falls further behind others in broadband rankings.  The only threat to the national economic recovery from some cable and phone companies is another rate increase eating away at already tight budgets for most Americans.

Dingell’s latest noise opposing broadband reform brought praise from the U.S. Telecom Association, a group run by and for major broadband providers.  That should not be a surprise either, considering the USTA is Dingell’s 14th largest campaign contributor, donating $9,000 so far this congressional term.

Telecommunications interests who oppose pro-consumer broadband reform are among Dingell’s biggest contributors (in order of ranking):

Open Secrets reminds us this is a big money, high stakes fight with special interests pouring tens of millions into an all-out effort to stop meaningful broadband reform:

Since the start of the 2008 election cycle, telephone utility companies have given $12.7 million to federal candidates and party committees and spent $118.7 million on lobbying. Current lawmakers have collected $37.9 million from the industry, with Republicans collecting 51 percent of that.

The computers and Internet industry has spent even more money politicking and has leaned a little more heavily toward Democrats, giving current members of that party 60 percent of their nearly $50 million in total contributions. The industry has also spent $331.4 million on lobbying since 2007.

As the top all-time donor to federal politics, AT&T may have an especially strong standing on Capitol Hill. The company’s employees and political action committee have given $22.6 million since 1989 to current lawmakers through their candidate committees and leadership PACs, with 52 percent of that going to Republicans.

Verizon, too, is considered a “Heavy Hitter” for its extensive contributions over the years to federal political candidates. Current lawmakers have collected $9.2 million from Verizon’s employees and political action committee since 1989, with Democrats receiving 51 percent of that.

[...]

Here are the current lawmakers to bring in the most through their leadership PACs and candidate committees from telephone utility companies since 1989:

Opposing broadband reform that ultimately helps your constituents in return for campaign contributions and praise from groups like the USTA is business as usual in Washington.  Dingell’s outburst shows he’s forgotten exactly who he is supposed to be representing in this debate — his Michigan constituents, facing ever-increasing broadband bills.

Share/Save

Frontier Communications filed suit Tuesday against Google claiming the search giant stole its patent for giving users one phone number connecting their home, work and cell phones, the core feature of Google Voice.

Frontier, the independent phone company based in Stamford, Connecticut, claims it holds the patent for allowing a subscriber to “be reached on multiple telephone lines from a single dial-in number.”

“Google’s deliberate infringement of the patent has greatly and irreparably damaged Frontier,” the lawsuit charges.  Frontier is seeking unspecified damages and an injunction to stop the use of the technology.

The lawsuit distracted from Google’s announcement that Google Voice was out of beta and now available to anyone in the United States.  Google Voice lets users obtain a free phone number that will ring multiple telephones and screen calls.

The one number follow-me feature is hardly new to either Google or Frontier.  Phone companies have offered similar features to businesses through telephone products like Centrex since the 1960s.

Frontier filed its lawsuit hours after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued Frontier’s requested patent.

“We believe these claims are entirely without merit, and we’ll defend against them vigorously,” said Google spokesman Andrew Pederson.

Frontier will likely face an uphill battle in its lawsuit, because the company’s patent request from 2007 comes two years after Google Voice’s predecessor, GrandCentral launched service in 2005.  Google acquired GrandCentral in 2007, rebranding it as Google Voice. GrandCentral offered the same “one number” feature Frontier is complaining about two years before the phone company applied for its patent.

Perhaps Frontier’s lawyers might acquaint themselves with the concepts of “prior art” and “first-to-invent.”

Share/Save

AT&T: 'If you don't do what we say, we're taking U-verse away!'

AT&T is threatening to pick up its toys and go home if the Federal Communications Commission tries to bring back its oversight powers over broadband.

CEO Randall Stephenson threw a major hissyfit in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, annoyed the company doesn’t have free rein to do whatever it wants.

“I’m a 3-2 vote away from the next guy coming in and [trying to regulate us], [and] I take it away,” Stephenson said, referring to it’s U-verse IPTV service.

AT&T has threatened to cut spending on U-verse deployment if AT&T faces regulations like Net Neutrality in its broadband business.

“If this Title 2 regulation looks imminent, we have to re-evaluate whether we put shovels in the ground,” Stephenson said, claiming the company planned to spend a “couple billion” dollars a year on the service… until now.

But AT&T has already cut spending on U-verse, slashing $2 billion in U-verse investments in 2009 alone — news trumpeted to shareholders.  Additionally, AT&T has laid off thousands of employees.  In short, the threats the company made this week have already come to pass… more than a year ago.

Many analysts claim AT&T is bluffing.  Like most landline providers, AT&T is losing traditional phone customers who are disconnecting their wired phone lines.  Its wireless division has been pummeled for inadequate 3G coverage, poor customer service, and lousy reception in many areas.  AT&T can’t afford -not- to upgrade their services if they wish to retain customers.

The cable television industry certainly hopes AT&T isn’t bluffing.  They are enjoying AT&T’s disconnect business as customers dump inadequate DSL service and overpriced phone lines for cable-provided alternatives.

Share/Save

When the 60 Minutes franchise shows up to run a 15 minute story on your corporate crisis, you know you’re finished.

The scene: Telecom New Zealand’s heavily-marketed XT mobile broadband 3G network has collapsed for the fourth time since December, leaving hundreds of thousands of customers without service, government ministers apoplectic about ongoing service problems, and now resignations among senior Telecom officials falling on their swords for endless technical faults that bring excuses and promises of better service that never quite come true.

One Telecom solution: Video their customer service center’s employees trying to cope with a telecommunications crisis in the country in hopes the carefully edited footage, made available to the media, would humanize the company’s own incompetence.  It didn’t work as Telecom New Zealand’s 3G customers rushed for the nearest exits, canceling service and demanding no fee be charged for doing so.

To add insult to injury, after four network crashes, Telecom’s administration of the country’s emergency help line 111 (equivalent to 911 in North America) revealed lapses there as well, when the line suddenly stopped working for several hours.  The problem was discovered not when a Telecom technician discovered it, but rather when a police officer found it strange there were no calls to respond to and called the number himself to test it, finding no response.

Click here to view the embedded video.

60 Minutes aired Telecom’s dirty laundry and pressured Telecom’s CEO to respond to exasperated customers often left without service for days. He blamed Alcatel-Lucent for the problems.  Paul Hamburger, mentioned in this report, resigned earlier today. (15 minutes)

Share/Save

Cablevision characterizes the dispute as a "TV tax" on its subscribers

More than three million Cablevision subscribers in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are without their local ABC station as another retransmission fee dispute reached an impasse late Saturday night.

WABC-TV, the top-rated television station in New York went dark on Cablevision customer screens Sunday morning, potentially depriving cable customers access to tonight’s Academy Awards telecast.

“If Cablevision is serious about doing right by their customers and returning ABC7 and its programming to them, then they need to act now. The ball is in their court,” WABC-TV president and general manager Rebecca Campbell said in a statement.

The station says it sent Cablevision a new proposal earlier today, but Cablevision had not yet responded.

Cablevision argues it already pays $200 million dollars a year for Disney-owned cable networks like ESPN, and WABC’s request for what the company characterizes as $1 per month per subscriber is too much.

Cablevision is telling subscribers “it is wrong for ABC to demand $40 million in new fees to help pay the salaries and bonuses for top ABC executives” and characterizes the additional fees as a “TV tax.”  That argument might have some sway had Cablevision not recently agreed to some hefty pay raises and bonuses for its own management, while customers faced another rate increase.

Coming just two months after another high profile dispute between the cable operator and Scripps’-owned Food Network and HGTV, some Cablevision subscribers have had enough.

Stop the Cap! reader Jen said she ordered Verizon FiOS for her Long Island home as soon as she heard about the dispute.

“We’ve been here before and I just knew these guys would not get serious about negotiations until after the station was pulled, and I’m tired of them playing with my lineup arguing over who gets my money,” Jen writes.  “Verizon FiOS had a great sign-up offer and they don’t have these bull-headed disputes that drag customers into the middle of the ring to get repeatedly gored.”

Jen’s service was installed Friday, so she’s enjoying tonight’s Oscar telecast while her neighbors might not.

“Maybe we’ll have them over so they don’t have to play around with rabbit ears,” she adds.

Cablevision has been hounded by politicians who are also annoyed with programming disputes.  Cablevision says it would agree to binding arbitration and wants the Federal Communications Commission to intervene.  Both possibilities are highly unlikely, however.

What is likely is the high profile Academy Awards broadband will act as a de facto deadline for the two sides to hammer out a final agreement in time to allow WABC back on the lineup.  Most likely, both sides will settle around the 50-60 cent range for New York’s channel seven.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WABC-TV New York tells viewers Cablevision dropped channel 7 early Sunday morning after negotiations failed to resolve a dispute over fees. (2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Cablevision is running this message for subscribers explaining the loss of WABC-TV from the cable lineup. (3 minutes)

Share/Save

Princeton, Kentucky

A cable technician and his supervisor were jailed late last week after a customer dispute escalated into a shoving match between the Mediacom employees and the Princeton, Kentucky police.

Under arrest are Shannon K. Parker, 46, of Indian Avenue, Oak Grove, and 55-year-old Phillip R. Tosh of Centennial Drive.

Police officials responded to a call from 509 North Jefferson Street over an argument between a customer and the cable technician.  When police arrived, they report Parker was using loud, obscene language and refused to follow police instructions to calm down.

Tosh, a Mediacom supervisor, then joined the fracas and reportedly shoved one of the officers attempting to take Parker into custody.

The Times-Leader reports both men were arrested and lodged in the county jail.

Parker was charged with disorderly conduct. Tosh was charged with third-degree assault on a police officer and hindering prosecution or apprehension.

The investigation continues, and other charges are possible, police told the newspaper.

Share/Save

The elusive Dell 10v Netbook promised to new Comcast customers back in August is MIA for hundreds who took advantage of the promotion

Five months after Comcast ran a promotion for new customers including a free Dell 10v netbook, many customers across the country are still waiting to receive the computer.

Back in August, Comcast matched a Verizon FiOS promotion promising a netbook to new customers signing a two-year service contract for a $99 monthly “triple play” package of telephone, broadband, and cable programming.

Visitors to Comcast’s website were offered:

HD Starter Triple Play

NEW SUBSCRIBERS: Get a free Dell 10v Netbook with the HD Starter Triple Play for only $99 a month for 12 months and a 2-year minimum term agreement. Plus, you’ll continue the savings the following year with a price of just $10 more per month.

• Free HD – no HD access fees or equipment fees.
• Over 80 digital cable channels.
• Thousands of On Demand movies and shows.
• Internet downloads up to 15 Mbps, uploads up to 3 Mbps with PowerBoost®.
• Unlimited local and long-distance nationwide calling – rated #1 in call clarity.
• Voice Mail and 12 popular calling features including Caller ID, Call Waiting and more.

The campaign apparently shared something else in common with Verizon’s promotions — customers left high and dry wondering when the promised bonus will arrive.

Customer attempts to contact Comcast have met with a wall of excuses and broken promises, and often still no netbook.  Other customers were told they failed to “qualify” for the promotion for not precisely following the terms and conditions that were never explained to them.

Comcast representatives have told customers they lost out because:

• They failed to return a copy of the signed contract committing to two years’ of service, despite insistence from customers who claimed they had;
• Comcast had two promotions running at the same time that were nearly identical, though one offer did not include a netbook. Customers were told they were signed up for the promotion that didn’t include the netbook.
• Customers had to make three or four consistent payments for service, before the due date, or they would forfeit participation in the netbook promotion.
• The customer waited too long to complain about the missing netbook.
• The customer was now a TV customer, and therefore didn’t qualify for the promotion.
• Tri-Star/Checkmyrebate.com, the third party fulfillment center handling the promotion didn’t receive/rejected the customer’s promotion request.
• They lost the paperwork.

Although some customers began receiving the promised promotion more than 120 days after signing up for Comcast, hundreds more are still waiting, and complaining.  A few managed to obtain service credits up to $299 (the retail cost of the Dell 10v) and told to “go buy your own.”   One Seattle television station intervened to help a Kenmore resident finally secure one in January, despite hopes it would have arrived before Christmas for re-gifting.

Escalating the matter to executive customer service is usually the best way to cut through Comcast’s red tape and secure the promotion customers are entitled to receive.

Darren, a Comcast customer who waited months for the cable company to make good on their offer gave some advice:

I started posting on Facebook and Twitter and immediately received a twitter from @ComcastMelissa and @ComcastBonnie. They told me to email: we_can_help@comcast.com and provide my account information so they can get me my netbook. I received an email from Sherri Carson, (Sherri_E_Carson@cable.comcast.com) at the corporate office – national customer service. On January 7th, 2010 she said “This is going to take about 2 weeks at the most. Sorry, I know you should have received some follow up, but I’m on it.”

The kicker: I emailed her yesterday to say hey, two weeks is almost up and I haven’t heard anything. Here is her response: “You should be receiving your netbook no later than 2/19 at the latest. I will get you a tracking number as soon as I get one. You can check this site in about two weeks.

Just don’t get your hopes too high for a Dell netbook.  Many finally receiving their promotional gift report an Asus Eee PC arrived instead.  Comcast put that in the fine print as well  — it reserved the right to make substitutions.

Click here to view the embedded video.

KING-TV Seattle helped this Kenmore, Washington viewer finally get her promised netbook after signing up for service in August, 2009.  A Comcast executive personally pleaded for her to stay with Comcast, despite the promotion problem, in this report.  (2 minutes)

Share/Save

Negotiations between Scripps and Cablevision continue to drag on in the northeast as New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey Cablevision cable subscribers go without their HGTV and Food Network.

Progress has been incremental at best as Cablevision continues to refuse to accept paying the increased fees Scripps wants.  Cablevision’s declaration that is expects to never carry Scripps programming again doesn’t help.

Meanwhile, Food Network president Brooke Johnson has been running from one news channel to another to talk about Scripps’ position on the dispute, and that “hundreds of thousands” of viewers have complained about the loss of their two networks, a number Cablevision disputes.

Pali Research analyst Richard Greenfield, who covers the cable industry, defended Cablevision, giving credit to the Dolan family that owns Cablevision for standing up to Scripps’ rate increase request.

Greenfield accused Comcast and Time Warner Cable of “essentially rolling over” in their negotiations with Scripps, agreeing to price hikes for their networks, an allusion to Time Warner Cable’s campaign to fight back against programmer price increases.

If those cable companies “had taken a far harder stance with Scripps, Cablevision’s pushback may actually have forced Scripps’ hand,” Greenfield wrote.

Still, most viewers could care less about the power plays between cable and the programmers.  They just want their HGTV and Food Network back.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WCBS-TV New York ran these two reports during their 6pm and 11pm newscasts describing the battle between Scripps and Cablevision, and consumer reaction.  (4 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Same story, different city as WTNH-TV viewers in New Haven, Connecticut share their views on the dispute.  (2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Food Network president Brooke Johnson appeared on CNBC to take questions about the dispute and changing business model of cable TV and programmers.  (5 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Johnson also turned up on Fox Business News to discuss the dispute, how negotiations are going, and how viewers are reacting.  (6 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

…And Johnson also appeared on Bloomberg News accusing Cablevision of paying themselves top dollar for AMC, a network they own, while refusing to negotiate over a price increase for the “more popular” HGTV and Food Network amounting “to pennies per subscriber.”  (6 minutes)

Share/Save

News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch

The days of finding free access to News Corporation’s online content, from Fox News to the New York Post to Sky News are numbered, according to chairman Rupert Murdoch.

Murdoch spent several minutes with Sky News Australia political editor David Speers lamenting the mistake News Corporation made in providing free access to its news stories and content websites, declaring the free ride is about to end with the near-universal introduction of “paywalls” requiring Internet users to open their wallets to read or watch their content.

Murdoch says he wouldn’t mind a substantial decline in web traffic from visitors who currently find his companies’ content through Google news and content searches, claiming advertisers don’t place much value on one-time visits.  He prefers customers willing to pay.

Murdoch suggested most of News Corporation’s content will end up looking similar to today’s Wall Street Journal — a few sentences for free and then an invitation to subscribe to read more.  Videos could cost more.

Murdoch accused Google and other indexing services of “stealing” content, and when asked if he would be willing to request that Google stop indexing his websites, Murdoch replied, “I think we will.”

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow had fun with that answer last night, pondering how Murdoch will attract audiences to his content when the company refuses to allow search engines to index it.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Rachel Maddow comments on Rupert Murdoch’s apparent plan to ban indexing of his websites’ content by Google. (11/9/09 – 1 minute)

Sky News Australia was in no position to seriously object, as they are partly owned by News Corporation themselves, and Murdoch had little to fear from Speers’ gentle treatment of the media icon.

Among the company’s global media properties:

Share/Save

Phil Kerpen (left) waits his turn while Glenn Beck explains the Marxism connection in Net Neutrality

Glenn Beck, who is America’s biggest argument for mental health parity in health care reform, has turned his paranoid ravings to the subject of Net Neutrality, suggesting the whole concept is one giant government conspiracy to take over the Internet.  To prove the point, he brings on Phil Kerpen, policy director and master astroturfer for “Americans for Prosperity,” which should really be called “Telecom Companies for Prosperity.”

Glenn Beck believes there is a conspiracy by Obama Administration officials, working with “Marxists and Maoists,” to secretly gain control of the Internet through the implementation of Net Neutrality, and to prove it, he brings on a guy whose paycheck depends on the corporate contributions from big telecommunications companies that want him to pretend he represents actual consumers.  The real conspiracy was sitting just six feet away from Glenn, but he missed it because he was too busy rearranging pictures of Mao Tse-Tung and others on his magnetized chalkboard.

Drawing chalk lines and stacking and re-stacking pictures like some sort of deranged episode of The Hollywood Squares doesn’t actually prove a conspiracy, but I’ll take Mao Tse-Tung in the center square to block!

In a remarkably fact free ten minutes, Glenn’s photo album of the guilty got star billing, as he labeled those who personally crossed swords with Beck or Fox News as “Marxists.”  Van Jones, who founded Color of Change, the organization that coordinated an effort to strip Beck of virtually all of his mainstream paid advertisers after Beck accused President Obama of being racist against white America is there.  Rahm Emanuel and Anita Dunn, both of whom referred to Fox News as an arm of the Republican Party are there (Emanuel “is just evil, not a Marxist” according to Beck, while Dunn is a “Maoist.”)  Robert McChesney, who co-founded Free Press, one of many public interest groups fighting for Net Neutrality is there as well.  He’s the ‘real string puller and master conspirator’ here, according to Beck and Kerpen.

At times, this theater of the absurd left Kerpen with an odd look on his face, reduced to simply looking up at Beck, who spent large amounts of two segments on the all-important issue of moving and labeling pictures of his personal enemies around like a 14 year old throwing a temper tantrum.  It’s hard to argue Americans for Prosperity represents the sane position on Net Neutrality after Kerpen’s ten minute Beck Affirmation Session.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Part one of Glenn Beck’s rant on Net Neutrality with Americans for Prosperity’s Phil Kerpen on October 20th (6 Minutes)

When dealing with people not entirely there, sometimes it is safer to just humor them while you seek a graceful exit.  But Kerpen played along with Beck’s label gun, and as we’ve seen all year, co-opted the paranoia among some conservatives that Net Neutrality, the Fairness Doctrine, and President Barack Obama are all conspiring to silence Glenn, right wing talk radio, and sooner or later all dissent.

Beck opens the discussion by fundamentally misunderstanding the very definition of Net Neutrality.

“Net neutrality. This is that everybody should have free Internet, right?,” Beck asks Kerpen.

“Well, essentially. You know, they dress it up the way they dress up a lot of their things. They turn it upside-down by saying that evil corporations, phone and cable corporations are going to block what we can do block or we can say,” Kerpen responds.

In fact, Net Neutrality has nothing to do with giving away free access to the Internet.  It is about preserving the free exchange of ideas that would allow Glenn, and anyone else, to talk about whatever they want online without fear a broadband provider would interfere with their content, slow access to it, block it, or charge extra to make sure it gets through to people at reasonable speeds.

Beck tried to conflate Net Neutrality with a government plan to give away access to everyone at taxpayer expense.

“I don’t remember anybody saying in the 1930s that everybody had a right to radio and we gave away free radios for the government. And I don’t remember anybody in the ’50s everybody deserved a free television, but that’s where we’re headed now. So that neutrality – I want to get to that later on in the week,” Beck said.

Perhaps Beck will educate himself on Net Neutrality by that time.

Kerpen knows better, but he’s paid to distort the issue.  Stop the Cap! consumers encountered Americans for Prosperity in North Carolina this past summer who were duped to show up to support state measures restricting municipal broadband projects in the state.  They thought they were there to support a-la-carte cable programming options and to oppose Obama Administration “emergency powers” to control the Internet.  Upon learning the true nature of the legislation at hand, a number of them ended up on our side.  They hate big telephone and cable monopolies too.

Americans for Prosperity is largely funded by corporate interests, which makes it unsurprising they would echo their talking points.

Kerpen’s fear factory that Net Neutrality represents a way for government to demand balance on websites is laughable, but then we know better.  For a crowd that already believes in the basic construct of Glenn Beck’s world view, it’s entirely believable.  That’s a shame, because it is Net Neutrality that ultimately will protect their access to Glenn’s online content without blockades or extortionist pricing from broadband providers.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Part two of Glenn Beck’s rant on Net Neutrality with Americans for Prosperity’s Phil Kerpen on October 20th (5 Minutes)

Share/Save

"I think these are radical consumer groups," says Larry Kudlow

CNBC host Larry Kudlow engaged in on-air lovemaking with the wireless phone industry in a shameless segment decrying Net Neutrality.  His guest, Chris Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs at CTIA – The Wireless Association, was strictly in friendly territory as Kudlow tossed him softballs.  It was an industry talking point Blitzkrieg on consumers from start to finish:

Kudlow: Potential government control of the Internet: is Net Neutrality going to limit investment and innovation and even customer service?

Reality: Saying Net Neutrality is “government control” of the Internet is like saying safety inspections are “government control” of the food industry.  Without Net Neutrality, big cable and phone company providers will be the ones controlling the Internet.  Will Net Neutrality really limit investment, or continue the Internet success story that investment and innovation has already produced before providers demanded you pay more.  As for impacting customer service, that’s about as valid as claiming Net Neutrality will cause snakes to hide in your bed.

Guttman-McCabe: It’s a perfect storm of usage.  If we’re forced to deliver every bit all the time you’re going to lead to some form of commoditization of the product.

Reality: Gasp!  We can’t have that!  For those who may miss the meaning, commoditization refers to a perfect storm of competition, with providers generally competing on price because their products are of similar scope and quality.  Providers cannot extract higher pricing in such environments, because consumers won’t pay.  In the wireless industry’s eyes, Net Neutrality forces them to actually deliver the service they promise in their marketing materials.  You, as a consumer, get to choose the applications and services you wish to use and pay accordingly.  The market they want is to closely control and manage the content you use on their networks, blocking or impeding “unauthorized” services that don’t have a relationship with, or approval from, your wireless phone company.  Consumers actually want every bit delivered all the time, and providers are throwing a hissyfit because of it.

Kudlow: If you’re forced to deliver every bit all the time and meet the demands of these radical consumer groups, what happens to the profits of the deliverers?  The profits that are supposed to go into the investments to expand the broadband delivery?

Reality: Radical consumer groups?  Attacking real consumer groups that represent what consumers actually want, while providers stomp their feet when forced to deliver, doesn’t solve “the problem.”  And what of the profits?  That’s a good question Guttman-McCabe isn’t prepared to fully answer.  The enormously profitable broadband industry, in general, earns billions and invests a small percentage of that back into expanding their networks.  As our readers have learned on the wired broadband side, the logical assumption that providers will at least maintain a level percentage of revenue going back into network infrastructure isn’t always the case.  Instead, some providers raise prices and limit service, blaming “increased demand.”  Kudlow could ask providers what percentage of their revenues go into network expansion, and whether that has changed in the last ten years.  Of course he doesn’t.

Kudlow (to Guttman-McCabe): …obviously you’re not from the telephone company or the cable company, what’s your meat in the game here, who are you representing?

Reality: The CTIA has among its members AT&T, Cox, and Verizon.  Guttman-McCabe’s meat is paid for by all three, and many other industry members who belong to the group.  Who does CTIA not represent?  Consumers.

Guttman-McCabe: (Here come the shiny keys of distraction and misinformation, folks) I posit a question.  Are they (Google) allowed to cache their content closer to the customer to provide a better service under these Net Neutrality rules?

What about this pen -- will it be allowed under the new Net Neutrality rules?

Reality: Yes!  Having redundant and strategically placed content delivery servers is a widespread, industry-accepted practice not harmed by Net Neutrality.  Akamai delivers vast quantities of video content from regionally placed servers.  Cable operators will be able to place servers to deliver TV Everywhere to their customers wherever they like, if they so choose.  Net Neutrality does not compel web providers to run everything from a central server farm.  It would, however, tell broadband providers they cannot identify and artificially slow that content delivery down just because they don’t like it on their networks.  Big difference.

Guttman-McCabe: Is the Amazon Kindle, which is basically a wireless (single purpose) device — is that allowed to exist under the new Net Neutrality rules?  I think these are some of the questions that will come out as the Commission considers these new rules.

Reality: Yes!  Mr. Boots, your cat, will also be allowed to exist under Net Neutrality rules if he happens to jump on your keyboard while you access web pages.  Your wireless picture frame, which receives digital images to display on your bookcase will also be allowed to exist even if it cannot be used to play World of Warcraft.  I’m certain Guttman-McCabe and his friends will concern troll their way through the debate by throwing up lots of non-germane “concerns and questions” that they know have no relationship to the matter at hand.  They are well paid to do so.

Kudlow, of course, doesn’t challenge his guest on any of these issues, because he seems in perfect agreement with the industry position.  The shameless segment wraps up with the ominous notice that Net Neutrality has a long way to go and the CTIA has a “lot of educating to do.”  I’ll bet.

Larry Kudlow is the host of CNBC’s The Kudlow Report (M-F, 7pm/ET).

Click here to view the embedded video.

Larry Kudlow interviews Chris Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs at CTIA – The Wireless Association on Net Neutrality (9/21/09) (4 minutes)

Share/Save

AT&T: 'Google is violating the Net Neutrality tenets we spend millions to make sure don't become law.'

AT&T sent a letter late last week to the Federal Communications Commission calling out Google Voice, the free adjunct Voice Over IP service being tested by Google, for blocking calls to certain high cost telephone numbers.  Robert W. Quinn, Jr., Senior Vice President of AT&T’s Federal Regulatory office complained that AT&T has been forced to complete those calls while Google Voice does not, suggesting that might be the equivalent of a Net Neutrality violation, if not an outright violation of call completion requirements established by the Commission.

These days, almost anything can be defined as a Net Neutrality violation.  If I was a vegetarian and I blocked meat products from my home, I’d probably get a letter from AT&T’s counsel too.

At issue here is the exploitation of a loophole that was established by telecom regulators to provide extra financial support to rural community telephone companies.  When a person places a long distance call, part of the charge is paid to the company that connects the call from the long distance network to the recipient’s telephone line.  The fees long distance companies pay vary depending on the size of the community and the length of the call.  Small rural areas enjoy a higher call completion fee than urban areas do.

Some enterprising individuals discovered the fees being paid to rural phone companies were higher than the actual costs to provide the service.  Traditionally, that extra money was used by rural phone companies, often independent or customer-owned cooperatives, to keep their service costs down and to maintain their equipment.  Long distance carriers didn’t care because the number of calls to these rural communities was comparatively small.

But what would happen if a company set up a telephone number to receive lots of calls that would otherwise never be made to such rural communities?  The result could be a financial windfall.  That possibility persuaded a few rural phone companies to let third parties offer international calling, conference calling and adult phone chat services for no charge beyond whatever the customer has to pay to make the long distance call.  In return, the phone company kicks back a significant portion of the extra income they earn from “call completion fees” to the service providers.

AT&T, among others, got wind of this arrangement and flipped out, complaining they were paying an ever increasing bill from rural phone companies hosting these services.  Anyone with an unlimited long distance plan could call these numbers for free and stay connected for hours at a time.

Unsurprisingly, AT&T blocked calls to these services for a period in 2007, refused to pay for some prior charges, and sued several phone companies.

AT&T/Cingular spokesperson Mark Siegel told Ars that the reason the company has decided to start blocking these services is because high volumes of calls to similar services are costly, and the cost of those calls aren’t passed on to the customer. “We have to pay terminating access for every minute the person is on the line,” Siegel explained. “Typically these companies run them through local exchange companies that charge high access rates, so we end up paying high access charges.”

The FCC intervened and said phone companies cannot arbitrarily block customer access to phone numbers, and the blocks were removed.  Today, the free international long distance calling services are basically gone, but free conference calling lines and adult sex chat services remain, and Google Voice has now discovered the perils of connecting calls, for free, to these services.  So now they have blocked access as well.  Google Voice beta testers report calling blocked numbers results in perpetual busy signals.

AT&T pounced in a letter to the FCC:

Numerous press reports indicate that Google is systematically blocking telephone calls from consumers that use Google Voice to call telephone numbers in certain rural communities.  By blocking these calls, Google is able to reduce its access expenses. Other providers, including those with which Google Voice competes, are banned from call blocking because in June 2007, the Wireline Competition Bureau emphatically declared that all carriers are prohibited from pursuing “self help actions such as call blocking.” The Bureau expressed concern that call blocking “may degrade the reliability of the nation’s telecommunications network.” Google Voice thus has claimed for itself a significant advantage over providers offering competing services.

But even if Google Voice is instead an “Internet application,” Google would still be subject to the Commission’s Internet Policy Statement, whose fourth principle states that “consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.” This fourth principle cannot fairly be read to embrace competition in which one provider unilaterally appropriates to itself regulatory advantages over its competitors. By openly flaunting the call blocking prohibition that applies to its competitors, Google is acting in a manner inconsistent with the fourth principle.

Ironically, Google is also flouting the so-called “fifth principle of non-discrimination” for which Google has so fervently advocated (Net Neutrality). According to Google, non-discrimination ensures that a provider “cannot block fair access” to another provider. But that is exactly what Google is doing when it blocks calls that Google Voice customers make to telephone numbers associated with certain local exchange carriers. The Financial Times aptly recognized this fundamental flaw in Google’s position: “network neutrality is similar to common carriage because it enforces non-discrimination . . . Google is arguing for others to be bound by network neutrality and, on the other hand arguing against itself being bound by common carriage,” which leaves Google with an “intellectual contradiction” in its argument.

Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel for Google, fired back a response on the Google Policy Blog countering AT&T’s arguments:

Google Voice’s goal is to provide consumers with free or low-cost access to as many advanced communications features as possible. In order to do this, Google Voice does restrict certain outbound calls from our Web platform to these high-priced destinations. But despite AT&T’s efforts to blur the distinctions between Google Voice and traditional phone service, there are many significant differences:

• Unlike traditional carriers, Google Voice is a free, Web-based software application, and so not subject to common carrier laws.
  
• Google Voice is not intended to be a replacement for traditional phone service — in fact, you need an existing land or wireless line in order to use it. Importantly, users are still able to make outbound calls on any other phone device.
• Google Voice is currently invitation-only, serving a limited number of users.

AT&T is trying to make this about Google’s support for an open Internet, but the comparison just doesn’t fly. The FCC’s open Internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers — not the creators of Web-based software applications. Even though the FCC does not have jurisdiction over how software applications function, AT&T apparently wants to use the regulatory process to undermine Web-based competition and innovation.

The HissyFit is on, and it’s almost entirely beside the point.  Once again, Net Neutrality is being used as a convenient flogging tool, this time by a company that spends millions to oppose it, yet sanctimoniously demands others should comply with its founding principles.  While the systematic blocking of telephone numbers may echo the kinds of concerns Net Neutrality protection is designed to address, it’s not as on point as AT&T would have you believe.

Google Voice isn’t even close to being a replacement for telephone service.  It’s not even openly available to the public.  AT&T would have had a stronger argument complaining about MagicJack, the dongle that lets you make unlimited long distance calls for $20 a year.  They go beyond just blocking some of the conference calling services — they actually redirect calls to a recording encouraging customers to instead use one of their own partners instead.

Dan Borislow, inventor of MagicJack says “it is not illegal for us to block calls to [conference calling numbers.]  We have invited other conference calling companies to interconnect to us for free, so we can complete our customers’ calls to them.”

Google’s public policy response isn’t as satisfying as it could have been either, and uses some weak arguments in rebuttal.  Much more important and on point is finding a way to address call completion fee loopholes through a change in telecommunications policy.  The telecommunications landscape has fundamentally changed in ways that existing rules could not have anticipated.  Addressing that issue would provide immediate relief to both AT&T and Google Voice without dragging consumer interests into a telecom policy cat fight.

Unfortunately, that’s a point far too fine for many media types, bloggers, and the sock puppets to understand (or desire to), and the campaign of Waving Shiny Keys of Distraction will carry on, and may have been AT&T’s intention in making such an argument in the first place.

Share/Save

Who dares break the most sacred Ark of the Cable Covenant?

In March 2000, two cable magnates sat down for the cable industry equivalent of My Dinner With Andre.  Fine wine, beautiful table linens, an exquisite meal, and a Monopoly board with pieces swapped back and forth representing hundreds of thousands of Canadian consumers.  Ted Rogers and Jim Shaw drew a line on the western Ontario border and agreed to stay on their respective sides of it.  Ted and Jim divvied up each others cable interests, swapping Rogers’ systems west of Ontario with Shaw’s systems east of the provincial line. Thus was born the Ark of the Cable Covenant, with its founding principle: Thou shalt not compete or intrude in my territory.

The only question left at the end of the meal was who was going to pick up the check.  You did.

And so it was.  Since 2000, Shaw Communications has kept its operations west of Ontario, Rogers stays in Ontario and points eastward.  A very nice state of affairs, as long as you are not a Canadian consumer looking for competitive relief from high prices and lousy service.

Shaw Raids Ontario

But in July there was heard a great rumbling across the prairies and into the verdant forests and rolling hills of southwestern Ontario.  What was that sound?  Who were these cowboy hat wearing hordes riding across the lands to the shores of Lake Ontario carrying saddle bags stuffed with cash?  Why look, Calgary-based Shaw is staging a $300 million dollar buyout raid on Mountain Cablevision, Ltd., a 41,000 subscriber independent cable company based in Hamilton, Ontario.

But what of the sacred agreement?  Ted Rogers passed away in December, leaving Shaw to rhetorically ask, “What agreement? Do you know anything about an agreement?”

Indeed, there is no honor among thieves and cable executives seeking the spoils of a highly uncompetitive industry.  Rogers was shocked to discover an invasion on their turf, and they responded with a torrent of attorneys to block the deal, as Canwest News Service notes:

“Shaw is bound by the restrictive covenant which prohibits Shaw from building or acquiring any broadband wireline cable business in Ontario, Quebec or Atlantic Canada,” Rogers argued in court documents released Thursday.

Thankfully for Shaw, Ontario courts do not typically recognize “covenants” as sacred documents not to be broken.  Justice Frank Newbould on the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected the de facto non compete agreement and said Rogers had not proven any irreparable harm from the sale, dismissing Rogers’ “proof” as “speculative in the extreme.”

Of course, you realize this means war.

Tim Pinos of Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP is Rogers’ lead lawyer on the file. Shaw’s intentions are clear, he said Friday: “Shaw desires to re-enter Eastern Canada and acquire cable systems.”

Aside from picking a competitive fight with Rogers, an expansion east would pit Shaw against smaller but powerful players, such as Videotron, which is owned by giant Quebecor Inc., and commands a near-monopoly in Quebec.

With the agreement shattered, Rogers is likely casting its eyes westward, observers say.

Earlier this week, Edward Rogers was appointed to the role of deputy chairman of the company his father built. He moves from heading up Rogers Cable and will also oversee new operational responsibilities, including strategic acquisitions.

Unfortunately for consumers, some sacred agreements will remain unbroken.  Namely the one that keeps companies like Shaw and Rogers from competitively wiring communities already served by each other and competing head to head.  That simply wouldn’t do.  It would ruin a perfectly delightful meal.

Share/Save

“It helps no one if broadband subsidies flow to ‘overbuilders’….” Matt Polka, American Cable Association CEO

“We will have government-created competition.” Cable One senior vice president and chief sales and marketing officer Jerry McKenna

America’s cable companies are having fits of anxiety over $7.2 billion dollars in broadband stimulus money that isn’t just going to fall into their laps.  “There are a lot of strings on that money,” one executive told Multichannel News this week in a piece that truly feels for the plight of the nation’s cable operators, concerned that billions of dollars could end up stimulating competition in the rural broadband marketplace.

The horror.

Granted, there are some concerns with some specific conditions which will likely represent little or no impediment to big regional telephone companies, and those like Frontier Communications, which specialize in servicing rural customers (and will likely apply for a substantial amount of broadband stimulus money), but will potentially lock out a lot of “mom and pop” operators.

Among them are requirements that a “first lien” be granted to the Rural Utilities Service, a USDA government-run administrator of the broadband program.  That has some banks, which small providers would likely use to finance some up front construction costs, up in arms.  A first lien would leave the government first in line for any asset recovery from a failed project, not the bank.

But some small providers are also upset with a requirement that any completed projects be held within that provider’s portfolio for a minimum of 10 years.  That provision, according to government officials, was added to prevent bottom feeder “flippers” from creating new companies tailor-made to fit broadband grant criteria, receive substantial amounts from the government to build projects, and then quickly sell them to the highest bidder when complete, pocketing the profits.

But the overwhelming concern expressed by 70% of cable operators surveyed by the American Cable Association at their ACA Independent Show held in late July is the fear of competition.

Many small-operator executives said that they feared the broadband stimulus would create competition — one said the money would go to “charlatans who would ruin the business.”

Cable One senior vice president and chief sales and marketing officer Jerry McKenna, who after his panel session at the show said that his MSO will likely apply for two or three broadband projects, was even more direct.

“We will have government-created competition,” he said.

As a result of the realization that free government money was simply not going to fall from the sky into their hands, many of the nation’s cable operators have stomped their feet and thrown fits, finally resulting in more than half declaring they were either not likely or absolutely certain they would not apply for a penny.  It’s their hope the federal government will see a dearth of applications, assume the process is too onerous, and dramatically loosen up the rules.

“If they get an overwhelming number of applications, the administration will see this [program] as a success,” American Cable Association director of regulatory affairs Ross Lieberman said at the show. “If there are not that many applicants, if there is no incumbent interest, we can expect changes to this program.”

Changes have already been made at the behest of lobbyists, who are now given a freer reign to pursue broadband policies more amenable to their clients.  Also changed are the definitions of what constitutes an underserved or unserved area, and with the broadband mapping project at risk of being run by the providers themselves, those definitions could eventually become meaningless anyway.

But providers fearing an “overbuilder,” a competing company that strings its own cables and provides true competition, need not panic just yet.  As they nail bite about the decision to apply or not apply for broadband stimulus money, risking if they don’t a competing provider may, the government has graciously provided a 30 day window for incumbent providers to submit a formal challenge of other applicants for up to 30 days after the deadline.

Every application will be publicly posted online at BroadbandUSA.gov.

Share/Save

Mark Cuban

One would think Mark Cuban would have at least a small bit of resentment towards big cable companies like Time Warner Cable, who efficiently and swiftly deprived his HDNet and HDNet Movies networks from more than 8.7 million Time Warner Cable HD customers on May 31st over a channel fee spat.

But no.  He’s back plugging away with completely groundless predictions for the impending doom of the Internet if Net Neutrality has its way.  Opposed by big cable and telephone companies, Net Neutrality would provide a level playing field for all legal Internet content.  No provider could interfere with or prioritize traffic based on financial incentives, ownership interests, or for competitive reasons.

Cuban offers a bizarre rant about why that spells the death of online video, something he’s never been thrilled with anyway, on his blog:

If you run a TV network, broadcast or cable, you should be spending a lot of money to support Net Neutrality. You should have every lobbyist you own getting on the Net Neutrality train.  Why ? Because in a net neutrality environment no bits get priority over any other bits. All bits are equal.  In such an environment, all bits content with each other to ride the net.

When that happens, bits collide. When bits collide they slow down. Sometimes they dont reach their destination and need to be retransmitted. Often they dont make it at all.

When video bits dont arrive to their destination in a timely manner, internet video consumers get an experience that is worse than what traditional tv distribution options .

that is good for traditional TV.

Me personally. I don’t  support Net Neutrality. I think there will applications that require lots of bandwidth, that will change our lives. If the applications that could change our lives have to compete with your facebook page loads and twitter feeds among the zillion of other data elements carried across the net, IMHO, thats a bad thing.

But thats me.

If you believe that over the top video can impact the future of TV, and thats a bad thing for your business,  then you should be a big time supporter of Net Neutrality.  Its your best friend.

That’s proof that having millions of dollars to your name doesn’t buy an intelligent argument, or apparently a basic grammar checker.

I never realized the “series of tubes” Ted Stevens used to talk about corralled data bits into segregated clusters to protect them from “bit collision.”  Is there insurance for that?

Cuban should be spending more time worrying about getting his networks viewership on ANY television — “traditional,” “online,” or amongst his good friends in the cable industry that stabbed him in the back and threw his channels off lineups from coast to coast.

Karl Bode over at Broadband Reports has seen all this before, and has built quite a history on the antics of Mr. Cuban:

Of course bits don’t really “collide” on modern networks, and the bill exempts “reasonable network management” from neutrality provisions allowing for congestion control, but apparently no matter. This is the network neutrality debate, and as we’ve seen the last two go-rounds, truth, facts, and data are irrelevant — particularly to overly chatty millionaire TV tycoons worried about their wallets.

While the bill likely won’t survive a Congress that’s all but directly controlled by telecom lobbyists, that still won’t save us from several months of vigorous, fact-optional network neutrality debate. All the usual players are once again gathering, including Mark Cuban and his mouth, paid cable and phone industry sock puppets, stick figure cartoons, dancing men in green tights, and evil ISP flying saucers. Can we just skip to the part where consumer welfare gets ignored and be done with it?

Share/Save

[Updated 1:00pm ET: Stop the Cap! reader Michael Chaney found a video interview done last fall with some Australian providers falling all over themselves to praise themselves for Internet Overcharging schemes, and suggest American providers learn from them how to get away with trying the same thing.]

The group managing director of Telstra (Australia), Justin Milne, wants you to know that the era of free love is over.  They are sick and tired of letting content producers like Ninemsn (a partnership between Australia’s Nine Network ((think ABC or CBS)) and Microsoft’s MSN) use their pipes for free to send those video clips to their customers.  It’s time to break out the checkbooks and start paying them for freeloading on their network.

In a commentary for ZDNet Australia, Milne equates Net Neutrality with greed and “economic self-interest dressed up as moral virtue.”  Pot to kettle, especially when he quotes Franklin Roosevelt:

Franklin Roosevelt said during the Great Depression that heedless self-interest reflected not only bad morals but bad economics too.  Seventy years on, his advice still rings true.

Yes it does, and Telstra is a perfect example of that in practice, offering dreadful broadband service with paltry limits on usage and heavy throttles on speed when one exceeds them, all for a substantial price.  Telstra’s own self-interest leaves a lot of Australians despising the provider and begging for alternatives.  The morality of a company that now wants content providers, with whom it has no business relationship, to pay them money to reach their customers, can be left to the reader’s determination.

This is a tune we’ve heard before.  AT&T’s former CEO Edward Whitacre was the guy who first lit the flame to the gas line of abusive provider tactics using generally the same language:

How do you think they’re going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there’s going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they’re using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?  (11/07/05)

Justin Milne

After Whitacre was educated that providers already pay hosting fees, infrastructure and licensing costs, and provide the very stuff that drives consumers to sign up for AT&T’s broadband services (and pay them for it) in the first place, Whitacre did a full reversal three months later:

“Any provider that blocks access to content is inviting customers to find another provider. And that’s just bad business.” (3/21/06)

Milne follows in Whitacre’s earlier footsteps, except he wants to be paid by everyone.  His customers are already subjected to limits on usage, which have limited Australia’s multimedia online experience years behind most others, and now he wants to have the money he earns from Internet Overcharging -and- the right to limit content that reaches his customers to only those who pay Telstra for the right to deliver it:

“Some content providers such as ninemsn argue that Telstra should subsidise the cost of the ninemsn customers visiting their internet sites. We might also assume [they] would prefer petrol to be free for their cars, and Hayman Island would like air travel to the resort free,” Milne wrote.

“But Shell, Qantas and Woolworths do not give their services away for free. Just like BigPond and the rest of Australia’s ISPs, they need to charge their customers a fee so that over time their investment is recouped,” he said.

Of course, Shell, Qantas and Woolworths only charge once for their products and services.  They don’t install a toll booth on a road and claim that because a full petrol tank weighs more than a near-empty tank, there needs to be a surcharge toll.  Qantas doesn’t send people down the aisle on a flight with a collection plate demanding more money for your ticket because the plane was packed.  All of Australia’s ISPs charge their customers for providing broadband connectivity.  Telstra does as well.  The difference is that Telstra wants to charge its customers a fee and also charge the websites you choose to visit a “transport fee” on top of that.  Your bill as a customer doesn’t go down because of “cost sharing.”  Telstra’s profits simply go up.

Milne’s problem with Net Neutrality is its core principle that all legal data traveling across the net must be treated equally.  That means Telstra has no way to enforce their HissyFit.  In the absence of Net Neutrality, they can block, limit, or throttle those that refuse to pay them.

The cost of the infrastructure to support this traffic has been borne almost entirely by internet service providers, and not by the publishers. In Telstra’s case alone, the company has invested billions of dollars in the Next G mobile broadband network covering 99 per cent of Australian consumers, the HFC cable network in major cities and the extensive ADSL network.

Unfortunately there is no magic pudding, so this investment must be repaid by the beneficiaries of the internet — the users on the one hand, and the publishers who seek to make money from those users through advertising and subscriptions.

Milne almost suggests they did this out of the goodness of their heart, and their investment was not going to be paid back.  The fundamental reality is that subscribers to those services are Telstra’s customers and they pay for that service, such as it is.  That is where that investment will be recouped.  Demanding a company that has no business relationship with your company to pay up or else face the potential of being cut off is akin to extortion.

I offered Milne two alternative suggestions:

• Expand your network to create infrastructure suitable to meet the needs of your subscribers, who will sign on in greater numbers to your service.
• Create hosting platforms and services at attractive prices to content providers who will use your service to host their content (and pay you for actually doing something for them).

Barring that, this is nothing but a HissyFit from another provider looking for a payday.

Michael Chaney, one of our readers, discovered this video interview compilation done last fall by ZDNet.  Enjoy the Internet Overcharging excuse making, where the customer becomes the enemy, and the creativity to find new ways to charge more in without bounds.

“The attempt is being made certainly in the UK but also in the US to push that cost onto the content owner by saying, you pay, and we’ll prioritise your traffic,” he said. “[And] if you don’t pay, your traffic will be really crap.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Share/Save

The United Kingdom is the latest country to face the downside of arrogant Internet service providers throwing hissyfits when people actually use their broadband connections.  When broadband service providers entice investors with promises of fat returns, assuming most people won’t actually use those high speed connections for anything except web page browsing and e-mail, they get mighty upset when they catch their users watching online video instead.

One of the benefits of broadband is that it provides fast speeds to let people do more than what they used to with dial-up access.  That happens to also be one of the major selling points to get customers to part with a significant sum of money each month for the service.

They just don’t want you to use it.

British Telecom (BT) is the latest ISP to complain that the BBC’s iPlayer, which allows British residents to stream TV and radio programming on demand, and YouTube are using their broadband pipelines, but not paying them anything to do so.

That conveniently ignores the fact that their customers throughout the UK are paying them to deliver that connectivity, providing them with a handsome return.

Internet Service Providers not content with earning money from one side, now increasingly want a piece of the action on the other.  It’s the equivalent of making a long distance call, but asking both the person calling -and- the person called to pay a fee.

Since the companies providing the content consider the payment demands ridiculous, ISPs have started singling out certain types of traffic on their network and slowing it down, ruining picture quality and annoying their customers trying to access the content.

BT implemented a “Fair Use” policy for one of their broadband packages which lets them cut the speed of online video from the normal 8Mbps down to 896kbps between 5pm-12am each day.  BT claims that’s enough to watch online videos, but that very claim would negate any benefit from slowing down the connection.  How many TV shows do people stream at the same time on the same connection?

In fact, BT’s policy does impact on the quality of the video streamed to the viewer.  The iPlayer is capable of sensing your broadband speed and reducing the quality of the stream to match the speed you have available.

Of course, should the BBC agree to pay BT some sort of transport fee, they might find their way clear to take the speed bumps out of their way.

A founding principle of Net Neutrality is to treat online content equally when transporting it.  Your stream from the BBC should not be hampered while a stream from someone else is not, just because they paid extra.  Are bandwidth costs increasing?  No, they are decreasing.  There is no compelling argument to prevent providers from keeping up with demand.  If they want to earn money from content, they can produce their own and provide it to subscribers on equal terms.

Share/Save

Michael Lynton, Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment who was the subject of our last HissyFitWatch, has decided damage control was the order of the day after being caught making remarks suggesting the Internet had never come to any good and was filled with pirates and freeloaders.  A recap:

“I’m a guy who doesn’t see anything good having come from the Internet, period.”

The Internet has “created this notion that anyone can have whatever they want at any given time. It’s as if the stores on Madison Avenue were open 24 hours a day. They feel entitled. They say, ‘Give it to me now,’ and if you don’t give it to them for free, they’ll steal it.”

Just brought to our attention, Lynton decided he’d better clarify those remarks, because the blog world had already spent a week burning him in effigy for making them.  So off to The Huffington Post he went to pen his long-form explanation on May 26th.

In March, an unfinished copy of 20th Century Fox’s film X-Men Origins: Wolverine was stolen from a film lab and uploaded to the Internet, more than a month before its theatrical release. The studio investigated the crime, and efforts were made to limit its availability online. Still, it was illegally downloaded more than four million times.

That kind of wide scale theft was very much on my mind when I was on a panel the other day which opened with a question about the impact of the Internet on the entertainment business, and I responded, “I’m a guy who sees nothing good having come from the Internet. Period.”

But, I actually welcome the Sturm und Drang I’ve stirred, because it gives me an opportunity to make a larger point (one which I also made during that panel discussion, though it was not nearly as viral as the sentence above). And my point is this: the major content businesses of the world and the most talented creators of that content — music, newspapers, movies and books — have all been seriously harmed by the Internet.

Some of that damage has been caused by changing business models (the FTC just announced an inquiry into the impact of new media on the newspaper industry). But the primary culprit is piracy. The Internet has brought people with no regard for the intellectual property of others together with a technology that allows them to easily steal that property and sell or give it away to everyone, with little fear of being caught or prosecuted.

He could have said this at the Whine & Cheese breakfast in Syracuse and it would have provoked the same reaction his original comments had.  Not much to see here beyond another big corporate Hollywood studio executive pleading poverty and ruin because one of the industry’s own employees made off with a film print to score big bucks and eventually the copy drifted into Pirate Bay.  Nobody need call CSI to determine the cause of injury in this case.  Even the most casual observer can see most of these wounds are self-inflicted.

As Stop the Cap! readers already understand, there is a pervasive need for corporations to “control” things that involve or impact their industry’s business models.  Just as broadband providers seek to control the distribution of video content through strictly controlled gateways like Time Warner Cable’s TV Everywhere experiment, the entertainment industry has attempted to leverage control over every aspect of the distribution of their content, even when it alienates legitimate customers.

Nobody has advocated that theft of property be ignored. Companies that produce music, newspapers, movies and books have been dealt far worse blows internally than externally.  Let’s review:

The music industry has been notorious for its “control freak” mentality, particularly among major corporate owned labels.  Consumers face overpriced media in the stores.  Artists cope with accounting tricks and traps designed to allow the company to keep most of the proceeds of their hard work.  Today, many artists have taken back control over their own music, and sell and share their works through their own websites, bypassing corporate record companies altogether.  Many artists find they earn more from direct sales than their contracts with corporate music labels ever provided.

It took years for many record labels to even consider marketing their product in a way most consumers wanted – online pay per track or album at reasonable and fair pricing.  When it was made available, if often came with onerous copy protection controls which have never hampered piracy but have annoyed legitimate buyers.  Sony itself was caught engaged in anti-consumer behavior, sneaking a security-hole-opening software “rootkit” onto CD’s that installed automatically when a customer played the disc on a computer.  That small piece of software  created vulnerabilities for other malware to exploit.  Sony had to recall all of the affected CD’s and was sued. The overreaching RIAA lawsuits against consumers added another black eye.

The Internet abhors a vacuum.  Abuse your customers with denial of access, overpriced content, or alienate your artists and they’ll find a way around your bad management.

The newspaper industry responded to online news first by ignoring it, while their corporate bean counters sought to leverage every penny of profit out of the industry they could find.  Mergers and acquisitions left enormous debt, which resulted in cutbacks in the news gathering staff and a wholesale reduction in the size and scope of many local newspapers.  Replacing experienced reporters with wire service copy and intern-produced content didn’t exactly inspire subscribers to keep the local paper coming to their doorstep every morning.  One news site, Pasadena Now, literally outsourced local reporting to India, installing webcams for India-based reporters to monitor events at City Hall and e-mail 1000 word news stories, earning $7.50 for each.  The Hartford Advocate couldn’t believe anyone could get away with it, so they tried an experiment doing the same thing for one week, with controversial results.

The movie and theater group industry flings garbage at moviegoers for $10 a ticket, and provides easy credit financing for purchasing refreshments at “turn out that wallet” pricing.  You are then subjected to a cacophony of rattling cellophane wrappers, cell phones and text message alerts, endless ads on the screen before the movie starts, chatter from three rows back, and technical problems that usually start a waiting game over who in the audience is finally going to get up and hunt down theater management to fix them.  The projectionist that used to keep a watchful eye for these problems was replaced with a computerized automated system long ago in many theaters.

Books are hurt by the Internet?  Amazon.com seems to move quite a few.  Local independent bookstore owners may have been hurt by the Internet as customers make their purchases online or in larger book chains like Borders or Barnes & Noble, but “hurt” by the net?  Book piracy does exist, but more people are likely exposed to “book swapping” at their local library branches.  Thankfully, that kind of sharing remains legal, for now.  Existing copyright laws already cover this kind of piracy.  Lynton may feel there is insufficient enforcement, but that shouldn’t mean turning over the responsibility to the industry or its “enforcers.”

I’m not talking here about censorship, taxation or burdensome government restrictions. I’m talking about reasonable boundaries, “rules of the road,” that can help promote the many positive attributes of Internet technology while curtailing its hugely damaging effects.

Unfortunately, the “rules of the road” advocated by this industry are hardly reasonable boundaries.  We’ve seen the suggested boundaries.  They turn over an enormous amount of control to the entertainment industry.  Like the RIAA lawsuits, innocent consumers  could be caught in the snare of an accusation they were pirating content, even when it turns out not to be true.  Some industry proposals demand that a provider permanently terminate accounts of suspects, even without conviction or judicial review.  Other industry enforcement ideas include “packet inspection” to look for content flagged as copywritten and suspected to be illegally transferred.  The industry has a long history of ignoring or dismissing “fair use” principles, so someone using a Slingbox to stream video from their home cable TV service to their computer at work or while traveling could be deemed an “illegal transfer.”  Who gets to decide?  The entertainment industry?  And how long will that packet inspection take, and does it slow down Internet connections in the process?

Lynton also equates the “rules of the road” with the Eisenhower Administration’s construction of the public interstate highway system.  Since there are road rules and speed signs, why can’t there be copyright and piracy rules online?

Of course, such rules already exist.  Once again, this industry has been unable to stem the tide of pirated content from its source — employees stealing advance copies of films and programming, factories in Asia churning out millions of counterfeit DVD’s and CD’s, and websites that offer the content.  Instead, it seeks to hammer consumers as an enforcement measure, just like the RIAA did with music sharing applications.  Just as ordinary citizens aren’t empowered to appoint themselves as traffic cops on your local interstate, Lynton and the rest of the entertainment industry should not be permitted to “enforce” the laws as they see fit.

When Lynton starts with the premise that he doesn’t see anything good having come from the Internet, and imply that everyone on it is out to demand everything for free, or else they’ll steal it, it should come as no surprise nobody wants Mr. Lynton and his friends having anything to do with net policy, much less be given the authority to police it.

Share/Save

A lot of big companies have gotten big headaches dealing with the implications of a wired world.  Instead of embracing change and developing new business plans to win profits from online users, many see the net as the enemy or something that must be controlled.  When netizens out-think corporate efforts to protect fat profits and market control, an executive throwing a hissyfit sooner or later goes public.

That’s precisely what happened at one of those elite breakfasts with “important people” this past Thursday, according to Irin Carmon, reporting for WWD Media.  Sony Pictures Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton let loose in a mini-tirade against what the Internet had done to Sony Pictures:

“I’m a guy who doesn’t see anything good having come from the Internet… (The Internet) created this notion that anyone can have whatever they want at any given time. It’s as if the stores on Madison Avenue were open 24 hours a day. They feel entitled. They say, ‘Give it to me now,’ and if you don’t give it to them for free, they’ll steal it.”

At the breakfast, co-hosted by the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University and The New Yorker, Lynton wasn’t alone in whining about the online revolution’s impact.  Co-panelist Nora Ephron wanted to share her pain about how the Internet in impacting the newspaper business:

The Internet has had a greater effect on “our beloved print than it’s had on the movie business.” But, she conceded, “We’re in the last days of copyright, if you want to be grim about it….  Stop it. I dare you.”

When Hollywood or the folks who work for the dead tree format feel threatened, demanding control and order usually comes next, which is really just code language to hand power over to the entities feeling threatened.  Lynton didn’t disappoint, complaining the Obama Administration’s plan to improve broadband without first obsessing about piracy control measures was the equivalent of building highways with no speed signs or licensed drivers.

Of course, Lynton’s world view would have companies like Sony serving as the DMV, mandating the same kinds of onerous, consumer-unfriendly digital rights management schemes, lock-outs on content, or ludicrous high pricing — the very things that fuel piracy in the first place.

The newspaper industry’s problems didn’t start with the Internet.  The merger and acquisition frenzy of the 1980s and 1990s in the newspaper business created enormous debt, resulting in inevitable “cost-cutting” measures, laying off the very journalists that made newspapers worth reading to begin with.  Today, many newspapers print a dozen or less locally written stories per day, often shallow in scope, with the rest being wire service copy, columns, and lots of ads.  Is it any surprise many people drop their subscriptions for a paper that increases in cost and decreases in quality?  When movie studios shovel junk to moviegoers who pay $10 or more per person, bombard them with ‘preview’ commercials, and require “easy credit financing” to afford the popcorn and soft drinks, why be surprised when people rely on Netflix or other rental services to watch for less?

Controlling the Internet isn’t just limited to big media companies or newspapers.  Most of those opposing net neutrality have a vested interest in protecting their brand or service from the online free-for-all.  Some new media companies manage to make enormous profits that other older companies wish they could still earn.  It’s not always an issue of price or piracy.  More often, it’s about developing a product or service that consumers want and charging a fair price for it.  Consumer Reports online represents a success story.  Many are willing to pay a yearly access fee for their online content because of its quality and trustworthiness.  Meanwhile, several online news sites experimenting with subscription models to monetize their content also want to hang onto profits from their littered-with-ads look, driving readers crazy with video ads, sales pitches taking over your screen, and the usual pop-ups and pop-unders.  You still get all of the irritation, but now you also have to pay for the right to be irritated.  No wonder web audiences simply move on.

Instead of learning lessons from customers that reject limits on things they’ve already paid for, denial of access for ‘business reasons,’ or trying to reduce the quality of a product while charging the same or more for it, cartel thinking takes over. Enormous sums are spent trying to impose limits or order on the net to protect themselves, even if it means shutting down the Internet’s own “model,” where a level playing field means success to those with the best ideas, not just to those with the best connections and influence.

Share/Save

Challenge: How do you, the second largest cable company in the nation convince people you cannot afford to complete needed upgrades of your network without rationing usage and massive rate increases, while the fifth largest cable company just pulled it off with no drama and has announced the nation’s fastest residential broadband service, at fire sale pricing with no caps or limits on usage, starting May 11th.  Cablevision even doubled the speeds of their free wi-fi, offered as a public service to their broadband customers at no additional cost in many public locations, to three megabits per second.

Time Warner wants to ask customers to pay $150 a month for 15Mbps service while Cablevision rolls out Optimum Online Ultra, priced at $99.95 per month for both consumers and business customers, offering 101Mbps service.  You read that right.  One hundred one megabits per second service.  Cablevision has no caps or limits on its customers — doesn’t need them, never wants them.  Cablevision’s new broadband package even blows away Verizon Communications FiOS highest tier, which offers 50Mbps priced at $139.95 a month.

How can Cablevision pull this off while Time Warner has a hissy fit and yanks back their own vaguely-promised upgrades because customers rightfully said no to a 300% rate increase?

Integrity, honesty, real commitment to the communities they serve, and a recognition that a credit-card-like-pricing model at a time when the economy is hurting is about as low as you can go, all might have something to do with it.

Cablevision didn’t whine when it saw broadband growth.  It simply reached inside the broadband division’s profits, and made an investment in the future needs of their customers.  They completed upgrades to DOCSIS 3.0 without a lot of fanfare, without the need to impose rationing plans and without any caps dumped on everyone from the lightest to heaviest users.  In other words, they chose treating their customers with respect instead of considering them crooks, bandwidth hogs, and freeloaders that needed to pay more… much more, for the exact same thing.  That “other company” saw the same growth in Internet usage and felt their best option was to cut investment by 11% last year.

“Optimum Online Ultra firmly solidifies Optimum as the fastest Internet service in the home, at work and through the air over Optimum Wi-Fi,” Cablevision chief operating officer Tom Rutledge said in a statement. “This is a perfect complement to our existing high-speed data products, which are fast, reliable and far superior to anything available from our competitors.”

You bet it is.  Standard service customers who receive 15Mbps/2Mbps service will also reap the benefits of less congested bandwidth pipelines, made possible by the technology upgrade.  For Cablevision, it means reaping the rewards of an easier-to-manage-network, happier customers, new profit-making possibilities afforded by higher speed premium tiers, and an assurance they will retain their 75% market share for broadband services in their service areas.

That “other provider” continues to stomp its feet and decide the real problem isn’t their rape and pillage pricing plans, but the fact customers weren’t “smart” enough to see the genius of turning you upside down and shaking you for every dollar that happens to fall out of your pocket in the process.  You cannot Re-Educate an informed and empowered consumer that can see right through the PR campaign:  not yesterday when you shelved it, not today while you ponder how to market it, and not tomorrow when you bring back the same rejected plans with a new coat of paint.

Share/Save

[Update 6:22pm EDT -- If you are in the Austin area and you have had your service cut off for "over use," please contact me immediately using the Contact form on the top of your screen.  Thanks!]

First Time Warner (via TWCAlex on Twitter) told customers who fought back the caps that the company was reneging on the DOCSIS upgrade, at least for now, and was taking their toys home with them.

But now the hissy fit might be extending into a usage crackdown in at least one of the “test” cities.  Because the promised “listening tour” of customer concerns is nowhere in sight, and the company has instead relied on a Re-Education campaign involving astroturfing lobbyists and propaganda, StoptheCap! launches a new feature this morning for any and all ISPs who throw tantrums when customers rebel and don’t allow providers to do whatever they want.

HissyFitWatch reports on ISPs who suddenly develop a bad attitude when things just don’t appear to be going their way.

Austin StoptheCap! reader Ryan Howard kicks off our premiere edition with a report that his Road Runner service was cut off yesterday without warning.  According to Ryan, it took four calls to technical support, two visits to the cable store to try two new cable modems (all to no avail), before someone at Time Warner finally told him to call the company’s “Security and Abuse” center.

“I called the number and had to leave a voice mail and about an hour later a Time Warner technician called me back and lectured me for using 44 gigabytes in one week,” Howard wrote.

Howard was then “educated” about his usage.

“According to her, that is more than most people use in a year,” Howard said.

Howard questioned the company representative about what defines an acceptable amount of usage so he doesn’t get cut off again.  He pays extra for Road Runner’s premium Turbo tier, so he already hands more money to Time Warner than average subscribers for his broadband service.

“All she would commit to is less — perhaps half or as quarter as much,” he said.

Time Warner is taking their DOCSIS 3 toys home with them after customers reject Caps 'n Tiers.

Convenient, considering that amounts to 40-60 gigabytes a month, which falls right in line with the now-temporarily-shelved tier pricing.

Ryan felt concerned that the Time Warner representative had such detailed information in front of her about his usage, although the representative reiterated repeatedly that they were not monitoring what he was doing with his account, just how much and when he was using it.

Ryan was upset over the entire ordeal, not only because a Time Warner representative lectured him (and 44 gigabytes, while a considerable amount, is not even close to the terabytes of usage Time Warner usually complains about when they speak about heavy users “abusing” their network), but also because he wasted more than seven hours of his day yesterday making several trips and calls trying to troubleshoot a technical problem that was anything but.

Of course, Time Warner’s own policies for using Road Runner allow them to crackdown on whatever they define represents “abusive use” of their service:

Road Runner Terms of Service — Austin, Texas

The Internet is known as a “shared resource,” and Road Runner accounts operate using these resources. Excessive use or abuse of these shared network resources by one customer may have a negative impact on all other customers. Misuse of network resources in a manner, which impairs network performance, is prohibited by this policy and may result in termination of your account.

You are prohibited from excessive consumption of resources, including CPU time, memory, disk space and session time. You may not use resource-intensive programs, which negatively impact other customers or the performance of Road Runner systems or networks. Road Runner reserves the right to terminate or limit such activities.

Time Warner’s Acceptable Use Policy also allows them to limit and/or throttle service at will:

The ISP Service may not be used to engage in any conduct that interferes with Operator’s ability to provide service to others, including the use of excessive bandwidth.

The ISP Service may not be used in a manner that interferes with Operator’s efficient operation of its facilities, the provision of services or the ability of others to utilize the ISP Service in a reasonable manner. Operator may use various tools and techniques in order to efficiently manage its networks and to ensure compliance with this Acceptable Use Policy (“Network Management Tools”). These may include detecting malicious traffic patterns and preventing the distribution of viruses or other malicious code, limiting the number of peer-to-peer sessions a user can conduct at the same time, limiting the aggregate bandwidth available for certain usage protocols such as peer-to-peer and newsgroups and such other Network Management Tools as Operator may from time to time determine appropriate.

Of course, the company always had these terms and conditions at its disposal to control the “abusers.”  One of the benefits of the DOCSIS 3 upgrade, that they have apparently now taken back, is that it dramatically reduces the possibility that a heavy bandwidth consumer will impact anyone else’s service.  Why put several cities through the ordeal of forced tier pricing experiments, when they’ve always had the power to manage the traffic on their network?  It’s just another reason why we’ve been skeptical about usage caps and forced tier pricing all along.

If Ryan’s experience is an example of what is forthcoming for more customers in the Austin area, we’re concerned.

Share/Save