Time Warner Cable subscribers are at reduced risk of losing access to Disney owned channels like ESPN, Disney and local television stations in several major cities now that the two companies are close to an agreement.  But, as usual, regardless of whether Time Warner Cable whittles down Disney’s demands or Disney secures dramatically higher pricing for its cable channels, one thing is certain: Time Warner Cable subscribers will ultimately lose, facing higher cable bills in 2011.

AT&T U-verse customers: your nail-biting has just begun, as AT&T sends home postcards announcing the potential loss of the Hallmark Channel and its companion the Hallmark Movie Channel.  AT&T’s contract expired at 12:01 AM this morning, but Hallmark said it was willing to keep the signals running on U-verse while negotiations continued.

Ultimately, it’s all about who gets a bigger piece of your money.  Be it local broadcasters, cable networks, or programming conglomerates who can darken a dozen channels on your basic cable lineup, all say the cable industry is enriching itself on subscriber fees and all these networks are asking for is a bigger share of the pie.  The cable industry says cable programming fees are the most significant part of rate increases, as the industry is unwilling to absorb most of the programming rate hikes.  Cable wants to continue its healthy returns, so programming rate hikes come out of your pocket, not theirs.

Sometimes the amounts involved come down to pocket change, other times several dollars a month can be involved.

For example, Disney-owned ESPN is typically the most expensive basic cable channels in the lineup.

SNL Kagan, a cable research firm, estimates Disney charges Time Warner $4.08 a month per subscriber to carry ESPN.  The costs are high because ESPN competes with major broadcast networks to secure increasingly expensive television rights to major sporting events.  ESPN’s early days were filled with coverage of volleyball, log-rolling, and billiard sports.  The rights to air these events were affordable.  But with the benefit of increased programming fees, the cable network successfully bid for professional football and other popular sports.  The more money ESPN charges, the more money they can use in bidding wars to secure television rights.

With most cable networks charging closer to 20 cents a month per subscriber, what ESPN charges (and demands) for contract renewals can, all by itself, trigger rate increases.

AT&T and Hallmark are currently arguing over an increase in subscriber fees that currently run around just four cents per month per subscriber.  AT&T argues it doesn’t want to pay the percentage increase Hallmark is demanding, even if it amounts to pennies per month.

ESPN’s rate increase demands often exceed 50 cents, if not higher.

This year a new issue enters the debate — online video programming fees. Disney wants to generate income from a whole new tier of sports programming – that streamed online to Time Warner Cable customers.  The sticking point in Time Warner Cable and Disney’s negotiations seems to hinge on the cable company ponying up for ESPN3, an online network.  The concept of cable operators paying programming fees for online content is highly controversial, especially when broadband customers could face ever-increasing broadband bills blamed on the same “increased programming costs” that have taken basic cable packages from under $20 a month in the 1980s to over $60 a month today.

ESPN3 reportedly wants 10 cents a month from every Time Warner Cable broadband customer, regardless if they have the slightest interest in watching ESPN3.  Some in the cable industry fear once this precedent is set, other cable programmers with online shows could start demanding payments for those as well.

While Time Warner Cable continues to resist, other major cable companies like Comcast Corp., Cox Communications Inc., Charter Communications and phone companies AT&T, Frontier, and Verizon Communications have ESPN3.com agreements with Disney.  Nearly all have also boosted their broadband prices for consumers as well.

Despite assurances from Time Warner Cable’s Roll Over or Get Tough website, the cable industry typically caves in on programming fee increases, often agreeing to split the difference.  Since they simply pass those increases along to consumers, it doesn’t impact their bottom line until customers start canceling cable service.

Subscribers on Time Warner Cable’s blog keep coming up with an innovative idea to solve these problems — allow subscribers to pick and choose (and pay for) only the channels they want to receive.  That novel a-la-carte concept invokes fear in the cable industry like garlic repels vampires.

In the end, even if Disney and Time Warner Cable can’t reach an agreement, should screens darken September 2nd, watch in amazement as a deal is achieved hours after the disruption in programming begins.  Then, just a few months later, the accompanying rate hike will surely follow.

WESH-TV in Orlando notes Bright House cable customers are also potentially affected because Time Warner Cable negotiates on behalf of that cable company, which has a major presence in central Florida.  (1 minute)

Broadband for America is the product of the nation's largest phone and cable companies.

Broadband for America has begun assaulting the airwaves with a high-priced advertising campaign claiming that “broadband is leading the [economic] recovery” but is threatened by “1930s telephone regulations,” urging Congress to get involved to stop broadband reform.

The 30 second ads blanketed cable and several Sunday morning news shows yesterday.

What the ads don’t mention is Broadband for America is actually one giant front group backed by large phone and cable companies.  In a study released last fall, Stop the Cap! found virtually every single “coalition” member, including so-called “independent consumer advocacy groups,” do substantial business with, or have received significant financial contributions or board assistance from companies including AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast.

Well-financed by the telecommunications industry it directly represents, Broadband for America seeks further deregulation and wants Congress to stop the FCC from enacting broadband reforms ranging from “truth in marketing” and billing to Net Neutrality.

The “honorary co-chairs” of the group are Michael Powell, the same Bush Administration FCC chairman that badly bungled the FCC’s approach to broadband policy thrown out in the courts earlier this year, and former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., who left public service for a very lucrative career in “dollar-a-holler” advocacy and working as a lobbyist for the economic-vampire investment bank Goldman Sachs (something Broadband for America left out of his online biography.)

Broadband for America, a telecom-backed astroturf group, is running these advertisements promoting the agenda of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast to try and stop broadband reform policies.  (1 minute)

Verizon Wireless customers increasingly confront mandatory data plans costing $10-30 a month even if they don't intend to use their phones to access data services

An increasing number of Verizon Wireless customers at the end of their two-year contracts are suspended in time, unwilling to upgrade their phones because of costly mandated data plans that dramatically boost cellular phone bills, especially if everyone in the family wants an improved phone.

Kathy Vega, who lives in Rotterdam, N.Y., is just one example.

She complained to the Albany Times Union she’s effectively trapped with her old phone, an LG enV, because any upgrade will expose her to new mandatory data plans costing as much as $30 extra per month.

She’s been a satisfied Verizon Wireless customer for years. She also has Verizon Internet service, a Verizon e-mail address and a Verizon land line at home. She’s been a virtual walking, talking advertisement for the company’s products and services.

That’s why Vega was so irked by Verizon’s response when she tried to replace her enV phone and add a second one for her stepfather for free, thanks to a Father’s Day promotion the company was running.

Vega recalls that she was told that she’d have to pay another $30 each month for a “media pack” that would provide Internet and e-mail access.

It’s not clear to her now whether the additional price quoted to her was actually $30 per phone, which was her understanding at the time, or a total additional cost of $30 per month, based on a $9.99 data plan for each phone.

The Maroon enV model like hers on Verizon’s Web site now requires a data package costing “$9.99 or higher.”

The exact amount is almost irrelevant, as far as Vega is concerned. She just doesn’t see why she should have to pay for services she doesn’t use — especially since she wants the same phone she already has with no data charge.

Kathy Vega explains her plight to the Albany Times Union Advocate.  (1 minute)

Good luck.

Verizon Wireless, like AT&T, is increasingly exposing loyal customers like Vega to hidden rate increases in the form of mandatory service add-ons, in this case to cover data usage.  While Verizon’s most basic cell phones are still free from these fees, the phones most popular with consumers these days all come with bill busting add-on requirements.

Vega pays $116 a month for cell phone service now.  Verizon’s salespeople don’t always volunteer the company offers a lower usage data plan for $10, so assuming she follows the path laid before her by Verizon’s in-store staff, she could face quite a rate hike.

Confronted with her options, Vega is toughing it out with her current phone and an expired contract — like many other Verizon Wireless customers.

For those who have been loyal to Verizon for years, it’s galling to find higher priced monthly bills when it’s time to renew a contract and upgrade a phone.

Jen Smith said she was peeved when she learned of the new data program and associated costs.

“It’s sickening. I also hate that they have no customer loyalty. We have been with Verizon since they took over for Bell Atlantic Mobile in the area (~11 years ago). We have six phones and spend about $320 a month for them. You’d think we’d get a little better service for that, or a free accessory or some little perk, or heck, even a polite customer service specialist, but nope,” she writes.

Reader Sarah discovered the same thing, and she headed out the door to Sprint:

“This is exactly why I left Verizon over a year ago. I wanted a Palm. I didn’t want the data plan. Even though you can put a block on the phone to prevent the “unintentional use” of the data plan, they refuse to sell any smart phone without a data plan. So I had to go to Sprint. Can’t say I’m totally pleased with Sprint, but at least I could get what I wanted, and that was no data.”

For Verizon spokesman John O’Malley, it’s all a matter of doing some math.

He told the Times Union’s Cathy Woodruff, who serves as the newspaper’s consumer advocate, mandating data plans actually saves customers from unexpectedly high bills. He described circumstances where many owners of such devices had been racking up unexpected charges, suffering bill shock from Verizon’s punitive charge of $1.99 per megabite of data consumed.

“Customers who purchase these phones tend to take full advantage of the phone’s capabilities for surfing the Web, checking e-mail, etc.,” O’Malley said. “We’ve seen that those customers use an average of 17 megabytes of data per month. At our pay-as-you-go rate of $1.99 per megabite, that would cost them more than $30 a month.”

The $9.99 data feature provides up to 25 megabytes of data per month, which would cost nearly $50 under the old pricing policy, which makes the package “more cost effective,” he said.

Woodruff argued it won’t save any money for customers who don’t use data services.

But beyond that, we contend O’Malley’s math only works when using Verizon’s numbers.

It was Verizon Wireless that set the price of $1,990 per gigabyte of usage for “occasional users.”  Had Verizon chosen pricing more reflective of its actual costs, consumers finding an extra dollar or two on their bill for a piddly 17 megabytes of data would still leave Verizon fat and happy, more than covering their costs.  By inflating accidental and occasional use pricing into the ionosphere, O’Malley has a stronger argument to sell customers mandatory data plans that protect them from data pricing traps created by Verizon itself.

Overpricing data plans for loyal Verizon Wireless customers who can’t or won’t jump for joy at the prospect of spending $100 a month or more for a single cell phone with data service are now shopping around for better deals.  Unfortunately, they won’t find them at AT&T, who generally charges the same prices Verizon does.  But the financially-stressed consumer can find savings if they are willing to explore the second-tier of carriers, ranging from Sprint and T-Mobile and prepaid plans that require no contract.

Sprint promotes itself as a better value than larger carriers AT&T and Verizon

Sprint is banking on Verizon and AT&T overplaying their hand and overcharging their customers.  With Sprint’s newest handset hit — the HTV Evo, which also works on Sprint’s slowly growing 4G network, the company is attracting another look by advanced smartphone users.  Sprint’s latest marketing also targets families weary of tricks and traps from their cell phone provider, especially usage-limits and allowances.  Sprint bundles more services into its unlimited plans than other carriers, and its prepaid unit, Virgin Mobile, is no longer limiting wireless broadband usage on its 3G network.

Sprint’s biggest challenges to regain its top-tier footing come from years of bad customer service which company CEO Dan Hesse now assures is behind them, and a considerably more limited coverage area that simply cannot compare to AT&T and Verizon.

But for customers like Vega, being able to use the phone she wants and not pay gotcha fees for services she doesn’t use may be enough to compel a switch. 

Verizon isn’t fooling her.

Woodruff

As Woodruff observes, “it seems foolish for Verizon to close out options for loyal customers, though, at a time when options can be such a strong selling point.”

“I just think (Verizon’s data package) is their way of building it to create more revenue, which I understand,” Vega told Woodruff, “but the customer should have a choice.”

She is so right.

Cathy Woodruff is known to Times Union readers as The Advocate.  Cathy covers telecommunications issues regularly in her column which appears twice-weekly in the newspaper.  She has covered the capital region of New York around Albany for more than 25 years, becoming The Advocate in July, 2009.  She grew up in Herkimer County in upstate New York. Her column is highly recommended.

38 Tennessee counties are about to face AT&T price deregulation, something critics contend will bring rate hikes of up to 50 percent for many of the state's most rural residents.

Attention rural residents in 38 counties in Tennessee with AT&T landlines: Start saving your money because AT&T will come looking for more of it soon enough.

As a result of 2009 legislation heavily promoted by the state’s largest phone company, AT&T has easily managed to pass a “competition test” it helped devise, triggering total deregulation of basic phone rates across the state.

Although some of the legislation’s supporters are celebrating the end of rate oversight by the Tennessee Regulatory Authority (TRA), claims that competition has broken out across Tennessee may be an exaggeration.  Critics contend many residents will face relentless AT&T rate increases, especially for the elderly and those living in rural areas — typically the poorest regions of the state.

AT&T’s competition test only required the presence of a potential competitor to meet the definition of “competition.”  Unfortunately, for many residents in the 38 affected counties, that competing cable or wireless provider often can’t or won’t provide reliable service, either because cable lines bypass rural areas or cell phone service offers poor signals.  That leaves many consumers at the mercy of AT&T, who can now charge whatever they like.

It’s a key flaw many state legislators fail to recognize when accepting the phone company’s argument that deregulation will save consumers money.  Documentary evidence suggests the reverse is true, especially in areas not well covered by cable and wireless competition. Those choosing the most basic levels of service typically face the largest rate hikes as telecommunications companies try to drive customers into multi-service bundles often approaching $200 a month.

For now, the first step is to do away with oversight and AT&T wasted no time pulling out provider maps for the 38 still-regulated counties in the state and found cable and cell phone competitors in all of them.  Despite the fact those services are not available to every resident, AT&T lawyer Joelle Phillips demanded the TRA immediately end rate regulation.

Customer Advocacy Lawyer Mary Leigh White warned the TRA AT&T would follow their track record in other states where rates were deregulated and raise prices up to 50 percent. Phillips told the Authority it didn’t matter — the law AT&T helped write and lobby for was clear:

“When a statute includes one thing specifically and doesn’t refer to other things, that the statute must be read to have done that on purpose,” said Phillips.

With that argument, the TRA capitulated Monday and voted unanimously to end rate oversight.

Consumers in the state who do find major price hikes in their future can blame the deregulation bill’s chief sponsors:

• Sen. Paul Stanley, (R-Collierville) (Resigned last August after caught in an extramarital affair with a 22-year old intern.)
• Sen. Dewayne Bunch, (R-Cleveland)
• Rep. Gerald McCormick, (R-Chattanooga)

WSMV-TV in Nashville covered the end of AT&T rate oversight and the implications the change will have on Tennessee phone bills.  (2 minutes)

Wendy

Pro-broadband reform groups continue to hit the telecommunications industry’s last nerve.  While the fight for more expansive broadband and Net Neutrality continues, some providers and their water-carrying friends are pulling out all the stops to keep broadband under the firm grasp of a phone and cable duopoly.  Both will say or do just about anything along the way to stop consumer-friendly reform.

Say hello to Mike Wendy.  He’s made it his personal mission to “expose” groups promoting broadband reform as “radicals” and “hardcore entrenched lobbyists.”  Using rhetoric that will resonate with angry talk radio listeners, Wendy is convinced broadband policies that enforce the public interest and Net Neutrality are akin to a Marxist takeover.  While Wendy calls on good Americans like himself to man the barricades protecting AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable, he just doesn’t have time to mention he happens to work for a special interest group funded by Big Telecom.  Maybe it slipped his mind?

Wendy’s ironically named “Media Freedom” blog is chock full of attacks on “Free Press and the radical media reformistas [sic].”  Special guest stars include Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Marxism, collectivism, and a whole slew of rhetoric that ultimately tells readers efforts to enact broadband reform are little more than a grand socialist conspiracy.

A real grassroots campaign is run for and by consumers. An astroturf campaign is bought and paid for by corporate interests to push their own agenda.

His visitors’ enthusiasm for such accusations might be diminished a tad had Wendy prominently disclosed his day job: Vice President of Press & External Affairs at the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a “think tank” that ingests money from Big Telecom and then spews forth their talking points.  Among the backers: AT&T, Comcast, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Time Warner Cable and Verizon.

That takes the wind out of the proclamation that Media Freedom is a bulwark against those who “threaten to quash speech and economic freedoms.”  Wendy isn’t working for Big Government.  He’s working for the interests of AT&T and Comcast.

Many of the companies supporting the Progress & Freedom Foundation have a vested interest in maintaining today’s barely-competitive broadband marketplace, avoid oversight, and stop reform regulation and legislation dead in its tracks.  They want Progress only on their terms and the Freedom to do whatever they please.

The real chutzpah moment came when Wendy claimed pro-consumer groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge were the ones running high-powered lobbying campaigns.  That’s a pot to kettle moment to behold, especially considering who paid to print Wendy’s business cards.  From a recent blog post:

The “public interest” lobby makes itself out to be the tireless, country-poor underdog for the downtrodden consumer.  But don’t be fooled.  In the technology space, three such groups – Public Knowledge, Media Access Project and Free Press – have few rivals.  Their humble appearance belies their take-no-prisoners, oftentimes shameless, below-the-belt approach to public policy formation and gamesmanship.  How do they do it?  They use all the tools, and then some, to make them every bit as sophisticated as the largest companies they’re trying to undermine.

Shameless and “below-the-belt” might better define Wendy’s last job: “Director of Grassroots” for the United States Telecom Association, a job title that literally defines astroturf-in-action. Who is on the board of USTA?  Among others, corporate executives and lobbyists for AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, and two members who shouldn’t be able to afford the annual dues considering their employers went bankrupt — Hawaiian Telcom and FairPoint Communications.

Wendy’s line of thinking is evident soon enough from his blog’s tag cloud, a regular cocktail of conspiracy:

The ironically named "Media Freedom" blog isn't media and its freedom is limited to carrying water for the nation's largest telecom companies.

• Al Franken (the broadband industry’s ‘Boogie Man’)
• Cyber-Collectivist (the secret link between broadband and Jean-Jacques Rousseau)
• Fairness Doctrine (guaranteed to perk up the ears of any conservative talk radio fan wandering through)
• First Amendment (for corporations)
• Freedom (for said corporations to abuse your wallet)
• Free Speech (for corporations)
• Hugo Chavez (the go-to-guy for lazy smear-by-association rhetoric)
• Marxist (chalkboard time)
• New Deal (broadband users sure want one)
• … and redistributionism (something overheard at the last session of the “Communications Comintern?”)

The rhetoric is two parts AT&T to one part 1970s Radio Tirana, Albania.  A Glenn Beck swizzle stick labeled “Marxism” is included to stir the overheated rhetoric into a hot mess for Verizon and the cable lobby.

All of the “isms” aside, we’ve created a convenient, handy-dandy chart you can use to see which team Wendy and his group really supports:

Distinctions With a Difference – A Telecommunications Issue Checklist

You've used too much, and now we have to charge you more... a lot more.

No matter where you live, work or play — be it Seoul, Korea, Manchester in England, or Oklahoma City — there is one thing consumers in all three cities will readily agree on: hatred of broadband data usage caps.

Those are the findings of a brand new survey conducted by GfK NOP in association with Reuters News in Britain.

Nearly 1,000 consumers were asked what they would do if confronted with their Internet provider implementing usage limits and other Internet Overcharging schemes.  More than half said they would be shopping for a new provider.

Not surprisingly, regardless of whether a consumer uses wired or mobile broadband, few believe usage caps are anything more than price gouging by providers to rake in additional revenue.  Many of these company’s biggest-spending-customers are unhappy to learn their provider is back looking for more money in return for less service.

The survey found users of smartphones such as the Apple iPhone care more about their mobile data allowance than they do about their choice of operator or even handset brand.

The survey found that users of the iPhone, Google Android phones or Research in Motion’s BlackBerry — typically, those who spend the most — are far more likely to switch operators to find better data deals.

More than half the users of these devices said they would switch to get a higher mobile data allowance.

Adjusted to take account of the fact that consumers do not always do what they say they will, GfK NOP esimated that 24 percent of contract customers using smartphones would actually switch operators.

Such a stampede would ring panic alarms inside any wireless carrier, but one company in particular faces some serious consequences for delivering years of bad service at high prices.

According to market research firm Morpace, nearly one-half of AT&T’s iPhone customers will seriously consider jumping ship if and when Verizon offers their own version of the wildly popular Apple smartphone.

At least 34 percent of current iPhone owners are resisting upgrade offers from AT&T that require a two-year contract renewal.  They’d rather wait until the iPhone is available on any network other than AT&T.

Even worse, should Verizon introduce their version of the iPhone in the coming year, nearly a quarter of AT&T customers (including those without the iPhone) are “somewhat or very likely” to dump AT&T immediately and head for Verizon.

In addition to complaints about lousy network performance, AT&T smartphone owners who spend the most with the carrier absolutely loathe AT&T’s new data usage limits implemented this past June.

“Experienced smartphone users who understand the benefits of using the Internet on the move and use services to help them in their day-to-day lives simply can’t live without mobile data,” says GfK/NOP analyst Ryan Garner, one of the report’s authors.

“They don’t want to be thinking about their data allowance and possible costs of over-running every time they open their browser or click on an app.”

Although AT&T told their customers and the media the new data-limited plans were going to save many customers money and have no impact on the rest, that is not what AT&T’s Chief Financial Officer Rick Lindner told Wall Street bankers and shareholders on a conference call last month.

“We believe over time, based on how much data they use, they will then begin to migrate up to [more costly] higher tiered plans,” Lindner said.

AT&T is well aware customers are already packed and ready to abandon ship, which is why the wireless provider has introduced a series of impediments to keep customers anchored in place.  Waived upgrade rules permitted most iPhone owners to upgrade to the latest iPhone 4 model this summer at the promotional price, in return for a two-year contract extension.  Customers seeking an end to their relationship with AT&T will find divorce an expensive proposition.  The company nearly doubled the contract early termination fee for smartphone owners June 1st.  Your exit price: up to $350.

Why construct more of these if providers can get you to use less and pay more in the process?

Reuters notes the biggest driver towards the introduction of Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps is the quest for additional revenue.

Most Western carriers have frozen or cut capital expenditure in the last two years as they prioritise maintaining the dividends prized by investors — meaning the modernisation of networks has been largely put on ice.

Meantime, they say they can no longer afford physically or financially to support unlimited data usage, and are banking on the fact that most consumers will barely notice data caps that are in any case far more generous than average data usage.

Stop the Cap! has been reporting that fact for at least two years now.  Usage limits are never about saving money for customers or making consumers pay for what they use.  They are about increasing profits at the same time providers continue to reduce investments to maintain and upgrade their networks.  Providers routinely report they are spending countless billions on network infrastructure, but neglect to mention those investments are not keeping up with subscriber growth and, in many cases, are actually decreasing year-by-year.  The self-perpetuating problem of network congestion that inevitably follows then becomes an excuse to charge customers more money for usage-limited service.

Reuters confirms that many western carriers have business plans that would be familiar to any neighborhood drug dealer – hand out plentiful cheap samples, get customers hooked, and then gradually reduce the supply while also raising the price.

In Europe, Scandinavian operator TeliaSonera is betting that the superiority of its next-generation LTE network, the world’s first, will allow it to offer premium services — at premium prices.

“When a service like this is entering the market, you normally more or less give it away for free, and so we did with mobile data,” Hakan Dahlstrom, the company’s head of mobility services, told investors last month.

“After a while… to meet the customer’s need for cost control; that is when you have flat rate. And then after some time the user understand how these services work and how it suits them, and you start charging for speed and volume.”

Yet not every provider has found success in alienating and overcharging their customers for increasingly important connectivity.

Reuters found Japan and Korea’s more advanced and mature data networks have already been down the road of usage restrictions, and found they didn’t solve network congestion issues — only provider investments in upgrades did:

Japanese operators NTT DoCoMo, KDDI and Softbank have stuck to flat rates — with discounts for months in which customers use less data — while encouraging them to use more Wi-Fi to take pressure off the mobile networks.

In Korea, carriers are returning to unlimited data plans because of heightened competition while investing heavily to upgrade their networks — a move that Western counterparts are unlikely to be able to avoid for much longer.

SK Telecom, South Korea’s top mobile carrier, last month said it would offer unlimited data services and free mobile Internet calls for customers paying 55,000 won ($46.40) and over in monthly service charges.

Of course, both Korea and Japan maintain more oversight by public officials over critical network infrastructure vital to both nations’ economies.  Neither government allows unregulated monopolies or duopolies in their midst — convinced they’ll deliver the least amount of service they can for the highest possible price they can get away with. In other words — today’s marketplace model in much of Europe and North America.

Reardon is fine with this vision of your online future.

Marguerite Reardon confesses she’s confused.  She doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about regarding Google and Verizon teaming up to deliver a blueprint for a corporate compromise on Net Neutrality.  In a column published today, Reardon is convinced she’s on a debunking mission — to deliver the message that rumors of the Internet apocalypse are premature.

As I read the criticism of Google and Verizon’s supposed evil plan to demolish the Internet, and as I hear about “protests” of several dozen people at Google’s headquarters, I scratch my head and wonder: am I missing something?

The Google-Verizon Net neutrality proposal I read last week doesn’t sound nearly as apocalyptic as Free Press, a media advocacy group, and some of the most vocal critics out there have made it sound.

In fact, most of proposal sounded a lot like a plan FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski offered nearly a year ago, which many Net neutrality proponents seemed to support.

In short, Google and Verizon say they agree to a set of rules for the Internet that would prohibit broadband providers from blocking or degrading lawful content on the Internet. Broadband providers would also not be allowed to take action to impede competition.

This is pretty much what Genachowski has proposed.

OK, terrific. There is agreement.

But wait, Net neutrality zealots are still unhappy.

Hmmm… “zealots?”  Reardon probably just angered the majority of CNET’s readers, who now find themselves labeled as crazed Internet online freedom fighters — net fundamentalists who want absolute protection against big Internet Service Providers tampering with their Internet Experience.

Where can I get my membership card?

Reardon’s “debunk” consists of her narrow, inaccurate definition of Net Neutrality pounded into a pre-conceived notion of what is and is not possible in a competitive broadband marketplace.  In short, she’s satisfied we can all move along… there is nothing to see here:

What Free Press and Public Knowledge don’t seem to realize is that AT&T and Verizon already offer differentiated services today with enhanced quality of service to business customers. Verizon’s Fios TV and AT&T’s U-verse TV services are also examples of managed Internet services that are delivered to consumers. And the last time I checked, no one, other than their cable competitors, has complained about AT&T and Verizon offering competition in the TV market.

The truth is that if Verizon and AT&T wanted to cannibalize their broadband business with premium broadband services, they’d already be doing it. But they aren’t, because there hasn’t been a market for it.

The reality is that consumers are in control of what type of services are offered. If the public Internet can adequately deliver a service for free, then there’s no need to pay for it. But if someone can provide a better service over a dedicated network and there are consumers willing to pay for it, then why shouldn’t it be offered? Isn’t that why some people subscribe to a 768Kbps broadband service for $15 a month, and others pay $100 for a 50Mbps service?

So let’s debunk the debunk.

First, Net Neutrality is not about stopping broadband providers from offering speed-based tiers of service.  In fact, that’s the Internet pricing model we’ve all come to know and love (although those prices are just a tad high, aren’t they?)  Free Press and Public Knowledge do not object to ISPs selling different levels of broadband speed tiers to consumers and businesses to access online content.

Net Neutrality isn’t about stopping ISPs from selling some customers “lite” service and others “mega-super-zippy Turbo” service — it’s about stopping plans from some ISPs to establish their own toll booths on the Internet to charge content producers twice — once to upload and distribute their content and then a second time to ensure that content reaches a particular ISPs customers on a timely, non-speed-throttled basis.  Consider this: you already pay good money for your own broadband account.  How would you feel if you sent an e-mail to a friend who uses another ISP and that provider wanted to charge you 20 cents to deliver that e-mail?  Don’t want to pay?  That’s fine, but your e-mail might be delayed, as paying customers enjoy priority over your freebie e-mail.

A lot of broadband customers may never understand the implications of giant telecom companies building their own toll lanes for “preferred content partners” on the Internet because they’ll just assume that stuck online video or constantly rebuffering stream is the fault of the website delivering it, not their provider intentionally pushing it aside to make room for content from companies who paid protection money to make sure their videos played splendidly.

Second, Reardon need only look to our neighbors in the north to see a non Net Neutral Internet experience in Canada.  There, ISPs intentionally throttle broadband applications they don’t want users running on their networks.  They also spank customers who dare to try what Reardon insists Verizon would never stop — using their broadband service to watch someone else’s content.  With the application of Internet Overcharging like usage limits and consumption billing schemes, cable companies like Rogers don’t need to directly block competitors like Netflix.  They need only spike customers’ broadband bills to teach them a lesson they’ll not soon forget.

Within days of Netflix announcing their imminent arrival in Canada, Rogers actually reduced the usage allowances of some of their broadband customers.  If you still want to watch Netflix instead of visiting Rogers pay-per-view cable menu or video rental stores, it will cost you plenty — up to $5 per gigabyte of viewing.

Reardon seems to think giant providers like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast care about what their customers want and wouldn’t jeopardize the customer relationship.  Really?  She herself admits she hates paying for hundreds of channels she never watches, yet providers are deaf to complaints from customers demanding an end to this practice.  What about the relentless price hikes?  Wouldn’t that drive off customers?  Perhaps… if customers had real alternatives.  Instead, with an effective duopoly market in place, subscribers pay “the man,” pay an almost identical price from the “other guy,” or go without.

Providers understand their power and leverage in the marketplace.  Until serious competition arrives, it would be a disservice to stockholders not to monetize every possible aspect of broadband service in the United States.

The check against this naked aggression on consumers’ wallets is from consumer groups who are fighting against these big telecom interests.

Before dismissing Net Neutrality “zealotry,” Reardon should experience the Internet in Canada and then get back to us, and more importantly those consumer groups she flicks away with disdain, and join the fight.

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

Julius Genachowski was played.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Knowledge: Google Sold You Out

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

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

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

Free Press: Google – Don’t Be Evil

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

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

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

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

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

Newspapers  Say ‘Enough is Enough’

The San Francisco Chronicle

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Los Angeles Times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This fight is far from over.

NNPA has direct and long-standing ties to AT&T

Sometimes it’s hard to tell real journalism from industry-backed “dollar-a-holler” hackery, but the National Newspaper Publishers Association, an organization of Black newspaper publishers, went way over the top and made it too easy.

Their “special correspondent” Yaounde Olu wrote a particularly nutty piece of paranoia in an article titled, “Free Press Targets Poor Blacks and Women for Net Neutrality Campaign,” attacking pro-consumer group Free Press for daring to work with the Harmony Institute to undo industry propaganda, astroturf group nonsense, and multi-million dollar corporate lobbying efforts to derail broadband reforms like Net Neutrality.

If this is what passes for “news,” newspapers should reconsider their NNPA membership unless they throw in some free iPhones from AT&T:

In a bid to ensure Net Neutrality, the Free Press has commissioned the Harmony Institute to develop a strategy that will target poor, rural African- Americans in the South and women to increase support for a Net Neutrality (NN) strategy. Net Neutrality is basically the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. In other words, everyone has access, and all platforms, content, and sites are treated equally. The opposite concept is a system wherein there would be limited or possibly “tiered” access. This could impact small businesses and other individuals without the economic wherewithal to access all sites.

According to the Free Press, the core supporters of Net Neutrality are affluent whites, who, have easy access to broadband and understand the issues. Poor, rural African-Americans and women, however, are the demographic that must be influenced in order to build a secure NN support base.

The Harmony Institute, a self-identified nonprofit organization committed to applying behavioral science to communications, in response to the Free Press’ commission, has produced a manual for the purpose of achieving these ends entitled Net Neutrality For the Win: How Entertainment and the Science of Influence Can Save Your Internet. This 40-page document identifies poor, rural African Americans and woman as “persuadable” for Net Neutrality messaging, and lays out very specific strategies for accomplishing their end goal of manipulating this demographic.

[...]Prominent members of the African American community have expressed serious concerns about the strategy laid out in the Free Press document. Shirley Franklin, a former mayor of Atlanta, offered the following observation, “It troubles me that an organization would target women, African-Americans and other minorities on an issue of such importance as universal broadband services without basing their advocacy on access, affordability and relevance.”

Julius Hollis, Chairman and founder of the Alliance for Digital Equality (www.alliancefordigitalequality.org), an organization whose mission is to ensure accessible and affordable broadband to the unders erved and un-served, particularly to communities of color, also weighed in on the issue. He stated, “I am extremely disappointed in the Free Press, not only in its policies and tactics that they are attempting deploy in their strategy paper, but equally disturbing are its attempts to portray the African-American and Latino consumers as expendable in their efforts to promote Net Neutrality. In my opinion, this is going back to the tactics that were used in the Jim Crow era by segregationists. It’s no better than what was used in the Willie Horton playbook by Lee Atwater who, upon his deathbed, asked for forgiveness for using such political behavior tactics.”

[...]Danny J. Bakewell, Sr., Chairman of the National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA), is taking the lead on fighting the Free Press’s NN strategy. He has this to say about it, “… I am outraged. And you should be too. I urge you to get out in your community and tell your friends, tell your neighbors, and tell those you meet at church and other groups about this appalling report. Most importantly, call and email Free Press and tell them you need a broadband connection to your house, not a subliminal message beamed into your subconscious.”

The Alliance for Digital Equality is directly backed by... AT&T

The NNPA and this “reporter” failed Journalism:101.  Let us count the ways:

For NNPA’s reporter, Balance is a nutrition bar, not an objective to strive for in this thinly-disguised hit piece against Free Press.  Last time I checked, Free Press was happy to answer their critics and share their own views on the subjects that concern the telecommunications industry and their specially-funded-friends.  Olu couldn’t find the space for the other side after all those “shame on you Free Press” quotes.

The portrayal of issue positioning and strategic messaging to reach various groups with a pro-Net Neutrality message is hardly an insidious, offensive plot.  In fact, unlike big telecom companies, the pro-Net Neutrality side has released their findings in public.  While the telecom industry marks their astroturfing and corporate lobbying strategies “top secret,” the pro-Net Neutrality side has nothing to hide.

But what would a newspaper association catering to African-American newspapers be doing in the middle of this fight in the first place?  As Stop the Cap! has seen and reported countless times before, when interest groups suddenly take an interest in supporting the telecom industry’s agenda items, telecom money is usually not far behind.

The most shameful part of the original article is the “reporter” couldn’t be bothered to be honest with readers and disclose the fact NNPA, the organization behind the article, has direct close ties to AT&T.  So do all of the quoted sources in the article.  The lack of disclosure is inexcusable, shoddy journalism — ultimately producing  just one more piece of industry propaganda.

“NNPA and AT&T Are Partners”

AT&T’s North Carolina President Cynthia Marshall was NNPA’s special guest at a corporate luncheon held by the group this past February, during their Winter Conference held in Charlotte, N.C.

Pharoh Martin, NNPA National Correspondent, covered the event and noted AT&T had “recently established a partnership with NNPA and the NNPA Foundation.”  Martin noted AT&T’s interest in broadband issues and reform are a top agenda item for the telecommunications company and the company ran an Internet Cafe during the event, exposing visitors to AT&T’s agenda.

The Center for Media and Democracy’s SourceWatch also notes NNPA has maintained strong ties with AT&T.

Shirley Franklin provides "dollar-a-holler" support for big cable and phone companies. (Black Agenda Report produced this montage image)

Shirley Franklin, quoted in the piece, was called a prostitute for AT&T by the Black Agenda Report.  After her stint as Atlanta mayor, she’s been an enthusiastic “dollar-a-holler” supporter for big cable and phone company interests.

Julius Hollis, chairman and founder of the Alliance for Digital Equality might be deeply disappointed with Free Press in his word salad of hyped outrage, but consumers should be even more upset that Hollis, too, is working for AT&T’s interests.  In fact his group is directly supported by AT&T.  Actually, calling the ADE a “group” might be a stretch.

As SourceWatch noted, “According to its 2007 tax return (Form 990), it had an operating budget of over $2 million, of which no money was allocated for fundraising, nor hiring of employees. In fact, the total compensation for board members exceeded the amount of all program-related expenses.”  That means loads of largesse for Hollis and the aforementioned Ms. Franklin, who “seems to be some sort of senior advisor to ADE,” according to the Black Agenda Report.

Mr. Bakewell’s admission that he’s taken a political position in this debate makes the NNPA just another player in the political arena.  They cannot call themselves impartial in this debate, nor should they be writing ostensibly unbiased news reports while also cheerleading AT&T and proclaiming a partnership with the phone giant.

Bakewell’s half-baked notions that AT&T will suddenly provide affordable broadband to most Americans while it continues to raise prices on broadband service (and in some cases limit its use), would simply be dismissed as naive if AT&T’s money wasn’t helping to feed the rhetoric.

The subliminal message beamed into the subconsciousness of NNPA’s readers is the one carefully crafted by AT&T to generate fake outrage and turn a telecommunications debate into another piece of raw meat for racial politics.  Once the puppet strings leading back to AT&T are revealed to readers, the real outrage should be reserved for the NNPA itself, cynically doing the bidding of a phone company and manipulating readers with false scandals and pointless side shows of distraction.

Obtaining universal access to affordable, high quality broadband service is not, nor has it ever been, a racial issue.  It’s an economic issue that has been exacerbated by companies that enjoy their current duopoly status and can afford to keep raising the prices on their customers, regardless of who they are.

Stop the Cap! is a pro-consumer group with no industry ties and no corporate money to hide.  We’re 100 percent consumer backed and consumer supported.  Too bad the NNPA, Ms. Franklin, Mr. Hollis and Mr. Bakewell cannot say that.