Just six months after the transition to digital television in the United States, proponents for the wireless mobile industry are back before the Federal Communications Commission asking the agency to “free up” additional frequencies by forcing major changes to local television stations.

The CTIA – The Wireless Association, a trade group representing big mobile providers like Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T, and the Consumer Electronics Association have suggested high power television broadcasting should be replaced with networks of lower powered regional relay transmitters serving smaller areas.  With considerably reduced power and antenna height, the groups argue, stations can be compacted into a smaller range of available channels, opening up new opportunities for wireless broadband services.

The number of available channels for television broadcasts has been shrinking since the early 1980s, when UHF channels 70-83 were largely reassigned for mobile phone use.  Today’s UHF band ends at channel 51, as channels 52-69 are reassigned to several interests, including first responders and other public safety uses.  With further compacting of the UHF band, up to 100-180 MHz of spectrum may be freed for mobile broadband use across the country.

How can this be done when the FCC believes many large urban regions of the country have used every available channel?  By reducing the coverage area of individual transmitters.  The wireless association claims interference problems come from high powered transmitters using soaring television antennas to give most television stations 30-40 miles of coverage area from a single transmitter site.  By dramatically reducing both the power and antenna height, and instead using a network of relay transmitters serving smaller areas, television stations can cover their local communities and reduce distant signal reception.  It’s these distant signals, and their capacity to interfere with other stations which requires the FCC to keep stations occupying the same or nearby channels far apart.

KATV-TV Little Rock's transmission tower

The CTIA suggests that with proper engineering of a low-powered network of transmitters, the Commission could reallocate UHF channels 28-51 for wireless communications instead, leaving UHF stations sharing channels 14-27.

The wireless lobby is selling this plan as a “win” for broadcasters, even though they will need to construct a network of lower powered transmitters and antennas to serve essentially every town in their existing service areas.  For most, that would involve constructing 15-20 new transmitter sites.  The wireless group says a more localized ‘cell-tower’ like approach to television transmission would serve areas currently not able to receive reception because of obstacles between the main high powered transmitter and a viewer’s set.  Proper placement of transmission antennas would maximize reception for each transmitter.  The wireless industry is even willing to bear the expense of purchasing transmitters, estimated at up to $1.8 billion dollars nationwide, to help broadcasters make the transition.  That’s actually a cheap price to pay considering the frequencies converted for their use are worth tens of billions more.

The plan got a boost of sorts from the Justice Department, who filed their own comments with the FCC suggesting adding frequency spectrum for wireless-based broadband should be a top priority for the Commission.

“Given the potential of wireless services to reach underserved areas and to provide an alternative to wireline broadband providers in other areas, the Commission’s primary tool for promoting broadband competition should be freeing up spectrum,” Justice officials wrote.

The Justice Department believes handing over additional frequency spectrum will promote competition, increase wireless broadband speeds, and lower prices, despite no evidence that wireless broadband competition would suddenly appear on the scene, or that the prevailing wireless carriers would actually reduce pricing and relax usage limits.

Broadcasters are not thrilled with the wireless industry plan.

The National Association of Broadcasters, to paraphrase, knocked the wireless industry for getting too greedy with its spectrum requests.  The NAB believes wireless providers like Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile are sitting on frequencies already allocated, but not yet used, for mobile communications networks, and they should use them before they come knocking looking for more.

Even more concerning to the NAB is the disruption the CTIA plan would cause for Americans still watching over-the-air free television.  Channel numbers would almost certainly have to be reassigned… again, at least for UHF stations.  That created significant confusion for viewers on the final date of the DTV transition in June when many stations either moved their digital signal back to their original analog channel number or relocated somewhere else on the dial.  Many Americans lost reception until they were taught to re-scan their televisions or converters to find the channels gone missing.

The NAB also questions the reception improvement a network of low power television transmitters could provide, particularly for those just on the edge of one relay transmitter and another.  Anyone trying to watch a low power television station today more than a few miles from the transmitter site can testify it’s not a pleasant experience.  Even greater concerns impact those “distant viewers” who may live between two or more cities, each with their own local stations.  Those viewers, using external antennas, can often watch television from several cities depending which direction their rooftop antenna is pointed, but could end up receiving no signals at all if CTIA’s plan is approved.

Broadcasters are also concerned about the impact lower powered transmitters will have on the forthcoming Mobile DTV service, which will bring programming to devices on-the-go.

The war over frequencies continues, as the broadcasters and mobile providers fight over who ultimately controls airwave real estate estimated to be worth $36-65 billion dollars.

Adam Lynn

Most people agree: They pay their cable company too much money. Not only is this view widely held, it’s also backed up by hard numbers.

Phillip "He Who Shall Not Be Named" Dampier

I’ve tangled with Todd Spangler, a columnist at cable industry trade magazine Multichannel News before.  This morning, I noticed Todd suddenly added me to the list of people he follows on Twitter.  Now I see why.

Todd is back with another one of his cheerleading sessions for Internet Overcharging schemes, promoting consumption-based billing schemes as inevitable, backed up by his industry friends who subscribe and help pay his salary and a guy from a company whose bread is buttered selling the equipment to “manage” the Money Party.

GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham and Broadband Reports’ Karl Bode don’t pay his salary, so it’s no surprise he disagrees them.  Oh, and I’m in the mix as well, but not by name.  Amusingly, I’m “the StoptheCap! guy, who’s making a career directing his bloggravation at The Man.”

Todd doesn’t consider himself “an edgy blogger type because, as everyone knows, I am The Man,” he writes.

Actually, Todd, you are Big Telecom’s Man, paid by an industry trade magazine to write industry-friendly cozy warm and fuzzies that don’t rock the boat too much and threaten those yearly subscription fees, as well as your paid position there.  I’ve yet to read a trade publication that succeeds by disagreeing with industry positions, and I still haven’t after today.

Unlike Todd, I am not paid one cent to write any of what appears here.  This site is entirely consumer-oriented and financed with no telecom industry involvement, no careers to make or break, and this fight is not about me.  I’m just a paying customer like most of our readers.

This site is about good players in the broadband industry who deserve to make good profits and enjoy success providing an important service to subscribers at a fair price, and about those bad players who increasingly seek to further monetize their broadband offerings by charging consumers more for the same service.  As one of the few telecom products nearly immune from the economic downturn, some providers are willing to leverage their barely-competitive marketplace position to cash in.

It’s about who has control over our broadband future – certain corporate entities and individuals who openly admit their desire to act as a controlling gatekeeper, or consumers who pay for the service.  It’s also about organizing consumers to push back when industry propaganda predominates in discussions about broadband issues, and we know where we can find plenty of that.  Finally it’s about evangelizing broadband, not in a religious sense, but promoting its availability even if it means finding alternatives to private providers who leave parts of urban and rural America unserved because it just doesn’t produce enough profit.

Let’s derail Todd’s latest choo-choo arguments.

“The idea of charging broadband customers based on what they use is still in play.” — That’s never been in play.  True consumption billing would mean consumers pay exactly for what they use.  If a consumer doesn’t turn on their computer that month, there would be no charge.  That’s not what is on offer.  Instead, providers want to overcharge consumers with speed -and- usage-based tiers that, in the case of Time Warner Cable, were priced enormously higher than current flat-rate plans.  Customers would be threatened with overlimit fees and penalties for exceeding a paltry tier proposed by the company last April.  The ‘Stop the Cap! guy’ didn’t generate thousands of calls and involvement by a congressman and United States senator writing blog entries.  Impacted consumers instinctively recognized a Money Party when they saw one, and drove the company back.  A certain someone at Multichannel News said Time Warner Cable was “taking one for the team.“  At least then you were open about whose side you were on.

“Verizon just wants to make more money by charging more for the same service. What an outrage! It’s not like the company spent billions and billions to build out their network and needs to recoup that investment.” — Recouping an investment is easily accomplished by providing customers with an attractive, competitively priced service that delivers better speed and more reliability than the competition.  Provide that in an era when fiber optic technology and bandwidth costs are declining, and not only does the phone company survive the coming copper-wire obsolescence, it also benefits from the positive press opinion leaders who clamor for your service will generate to attract even more business.  Stacey’s comments acknowledged the positive vibes consumers have towards Verizon’s fiber investment — positive vibes they are now willing to throw away.

Verizon FiOS already gets to recoup its investment from premium-priced speed tiers that are favored by those heavy broadband users.  Most will happily hand over the money and stay loyal, right up until you ask for too much.  Theoretically charging your best customers $140 a month for 50Mbps/20Mbps service and then limiting it to, say, 250GB of usage will be an example of asking for too much.  Verizon didn’t get into the fiber optics business believing their path to return on investment was through consumption billing for broadband.

“Today’s broadband networks — not even FiOS — are not constructed to deliver peak theoretical demand and adding more capacity to the home or farther upstream will require investment.” — Readers, today’s newest excuse for overcharging you for your broadband access is “peak theoretical demand.”  It used to be peer-to-peer, then online videos, and now this variation on the “exaflood” nonsense.  It sounds like Todd has been reading some vendor’s press release about network management.  Peak theoretical demand has never been the model by which residential broadband networks have been constructed.  The Bell System constructed a phone network that could withstand enormous call volumes during holidays or other occasional events.  Broadband networks were designed for “best effort” broadband.  If we’d been living under this the peak demand broadband model, cable modem service and middle mile DSL networks wouldn’t be constructed to force hundreds of households to share one fixed rate connection back to the provider.  It’s this design that causes those peak usage slowdowns on overloaded networks that work fine at other times.

No residential broadband provider is building or proposing constructing peak theoretical demand networks that are good enough to include a service and speed guarantee.  Instead, cable providers are moving to affordable DOCSIS 3 upgrades, which continue the “shared model” cable modems have always relied on, except the pipeline we all share can be exponentially larger and deliver faster speeds.  Will this model work for decades to come?  Perhaps not, but it’s generally the same principle Time Warner Cable is using to deliver HD channels quietly ‘on demand’ to video customers without completely upgrading their facilities.  You don’t hear them talk about consumption billing for viewing, yet similar network models are in place for both.

“Is it fairer to recover that necessary investment in additional capacity from the heaviest users, who are driving the most demand?” Apparently so, because providers already do that by charging premium pricing for faster service tiers attractive to the heaviest users.  But Todd, as usual, ignores the publicly-available financial reports which tell a very different tale – one where profits run in the billions of dollars for broadband service, where many providers Todd feels urgently need to upgrade their networks are, in reality, spending a lower percentage on their network infrastructure costs, all at the same time bandwidth costs are either dropping or fixed, making it largely irrelevant how much any particular user consumes. What matters is how much of a percentage of profits providers are willing to put back into their networks.

Do people like Todd really believe consumers aren’t capable of reading financial reports and watching executives speak with investors about the fact their networks are well-able to handle traffic growth (Glenn Britt, Time Warner Cable CEO), that consumption based billing represents potential increased revenue for companies that deny they even have a traffic management problem (Verizon), or that broadband is like a drug that company officials want to encourage consumers to keep using without unfriendly usage caps, limits, or consumption billing (Cablevision.)

“From 7 to 10 p.m., we’re all consumption kings,” Sandvine CEO David Caputo told Todd. “Bandwidth caps don’t do anything for you.” The implication of this finding is that “the Internet is really becoming like the electrical grid in the sense that it’s only peak that matters,” he added. — I would have been asking Todd to pick me up off the floor had Caputo said anything different.  His bread and butter, just like Todd’s, is based on pushing his business agenda.  Sandvine happens to be selling “network management” equipment that can throttle traffic, perhaps an endangered business should Net Neutrality become law in the United States.  His business depends on selling providers on the idea that sloppy usage caps don’t solve the problem — his equipment will.  Todd has no problem swallowing that argument because it helps him make his.  The rest of us who don’t work for a trade publication or a net throttler know otherwise.

What would actually be fair to consumers is to take some of those enormous profits and plow them back into the business to maintain, expand, and enhance services that deliver the gravy train of healthy revenue.  In fact, by providing even higher levels of service, they can rake in even larger profits.  You have to spend money to earn money, though.

Technology doesn’t sit still, which is why provider arguments about increased traffic leading to increased costs don’t quite ring true when financial reports to shareholders say exactly the opposite.  That’s because network engineers get access to new, faster, better networking technology, often at dramatically lower prices than what they paid for less-able technology just a few years earlier.  With new customers on the way, particularly for the cable industry picking up those dropping ADSL service from the phone company, there’s even more revenue to be had.

Or, do you think spreading the cost across all subscribers, thereby raising the flat-rate pricing for everyone, is the better option? Note that Comcast did this to an extent when it raised the monthly lease fee for cable modems by $2 (to $5), citing costs associated with its DOCSIS 3.0 buildout.

The industry already thinks so.  As we’ve documented, cable broadband providers like Time Warner Cable and Comcast (and Charter next year), are already raising prices across the board for broadband customers in many areas.  Does that mean the talk about Internet Overcharging schemes can be laid to rest?  Of course not.  They want their rate increases -and- consumption based billing for even fatter profits.

If, on the other hand, you want to pretend that all-you-can-eat plans are sustainable at today’s price tiers, you’d be kind of clueless.

Every ISP maintains an Acceptable Use Policy that provides appropriate sanctions for those users who are so far out of the consumption mainstream, they cannot even see the rest of us.  Slapping consumption based billing on consumers with steep overlimit fees and penalties punishes everyone, and the provider keeps the proceeds, and not necessarily for network upgrades.

If Todd believes consumers will sit still for profiteering by changing a model that has handsomely rewarded providers at today’s prices, with plenty of room to spare for appropriate upgrades, he’ll be the clueless one.  The cable industry’s ability to overreach never ceases to amaze me.  Every 15 years or so, legislative relief has to put them back in their place.  It’s what happens when just a handful of providers decide it is easier to hop on board the Internet Overcharging Express and cash those subscriber checks than actually engage in all-out competitive warfare with one another – keeping prices in check and onerous overcharges out of the picture.

Nobody needs to know my name to understand this.  But some of his provider friends already know the names of our readers, because PR disasters do not happen in a vacuum.  They are also acquainted with two other names: Rep. Eric Massa and Sen. Charles Schumer.  If they want to go hog wild with Internet Overcharging schemes, that list of names will get much, much longer.

Regulating mobile broadband data usage on a constrained network has posed a challenge for mobile broadband providers that can’t always easily expand their networks to accommodate growing demand.  As mobile broadband providers work with the frequency allocations they have either been assigned or won through airwave auctions, simply adding more capacity by using additional frequencies isn’t always possible.  So most providers have increasingly turned to usage allowances to artificially control demand on their existing networks.

Who wins the next round of spectrum auctions sets us up for the mobile broadband chicken and egg scenario.  Providers cannot bid the enormous dollar amounts these auctions routinely command without revenue from customers craving access.  Customers aren’t about to commit paying even more for mobile broadband service that, in the United States, is almost universally limited to five gigabytes of consumption per month.  Finding ways to attract new customers who have been resistant to the current pricing of mobile broadband service could provide a source for additional revenue.

But as far as consumers are concerned, the current model of “usage allowances” combined with punishing overlimit penalties is extremely unpopular, and will keep many potential customers away.

Camiant, which helps create and manage traffic management solutions for broadband networks, today announced the findings of its latest study, “Rethinking Mobile Broadband Data Rate Plans.”  Although some of the study was no doubt designed to help sell the case for Camiant’s product line devoted to “intelligent” network management and quota systems, it provides important insight into the European mobile broadband market.

The conclusion: Europeans don’t like Internet Overcharging schemes either.

In fact, when the 263 survey respondents using plug-in mobile broadband modems in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden were asked about their preferences for various rate plans, the key finding was consumers don’t like ‘Cap + Overage’ style rate plans.  Among their concerns:

• 62% didn’t know what their usage cap was;
• 76% didn’t know how much data they actually used;
• 39% didn’t know what happened if they went over the usage cap;
• 45% were very/moderately concerned about exceeding the cap.

When presented with four alternative rate plan structures and asked their preference — “Cap + Overage” was least preferred by consumers.  ‘None of the above’ was not an option, so those surveyed chose the plan most acceptable under the parameters of the study.  The result showed almost half wanted unlimited service, and just over one-third wanted to pay less for a plan with an allowance, but one that wouldn’t empty their wallets if they happened to exceed the limit:

Many users were willing to pay additional fees beyond the base subscription for potential “extras”:

• 43% of all respondents would pay €5 in addition to base plan for unlimited usage of one specific application. Of those that were interested, 90% said it was important that they select the application.
• 45% of respondents interested in a service that might provide lower speed at some point said they would be willing to pay between €1 and €3 for on-demand higher speed “for a short duration (e.g. 1 hour).”

“It’s becoming very clear that network operators need to offer a wider range of package options to users of mobile data users,” said Graham Finnie, Chief Analyst at Heavy Reading. “This study provides strong evidence that end users are willing to consider a range of alternatives to conventional usage management schemes.”

Some similar studies and focus groups being conducted in the United States testing additional rate plan options, most of which carrying a lower usage cap and lower pricing.  Many of the private studies are including the dreaded ‘I wouldn’t buy any of these plans because they are all too expensive for what you get’ option to determine if consumers are simply going to continue turning their noses up at overpriced data plans.

Mobile broadband growth at the $60 for five gigabytes price level has been accepted by the on-the-go traveler or business person dreading hotel Internet connection fees, but have been difficult to sell to occasional users, residential customers, or those who consider the price out of line for the amount of access it includes.  Most of these types of customers rely on free or reduced price wi-fi instead.

With 49% of survey respondents looking for unlimited plan options at reasonable prices, and most of the rest looking for a lower price with some limitations, today’s American mobile broadband pricing platform charging high prices for highly limited service is the worst of both worlds for consumers.

New Zealand, along with Australia and Canada are often cited by broadband providers as examples of places where broadband usage limits are commonplace.  With dreams of Internet Overcharging schemes in their heads, Time Warner Cable, among several others, have routinely pointed to Internet service abroad to justify limiting your usage at home.

But providers always ignore the fact customers despise the limitations on their service, in several cases ranking it among the biggest problems they have with their Internet Service Provider.  Internet rationing plans that barely budge in broadband allowances are a major factor in broadband mediocrity, and government officials are increasingly taking notice.  In some countries, national broadband policies seek to expand infrastructure where private providers won’t.

In New Zealand, the push for better connectivity comes through expansion of the undersea fiber cables that connect the country with the rest of the online world.  In the south Pacific, it is that connectivity problem which directly impacts consumer pricing of broadband and bring limits on service.

Today, the only major connection New Zealand has with the world is through Southern Cross Cable Networks, which have cables stretching from Auckland in New Zealand to Sydney, Australia and between Auckland and Hawaii.

Now, a second company hopes to dramatically expand connectivity with an expanded capacity cable to be laid between Auckland and Sydney.  Kordia, a state-owned enterprise, which plans to run the 2,350km cable, says this expansion will dramatically lower broadband pricing for New Zealand and allow providers to vastly expand or discontinue broadband usage caps.

Kordia says the cable, costing between $112-149 million dollars US, will be operational by the end of 2011 if all goes according to plan.

“Our proposed cable will take the most direct, quickest and least expensive route for New Zealand customers.  OptiKor is a better proposition for New Zealand than any other cable project – we are the most direct route to Australia and through our partners, we can deliver New Zealand traffic all the way to the United States,” Kordia Chairman David Clarke says.

Prices are already dropping in New Zealand just from the threat of competition.  Southern Cross Cable slashed prices on its cable 75 percent in anticipation of Kordia’s future competition.  Kordia claims that price cutting is designed to help drag down the company’s efforts to obtain contracts with telecommunications companies in advance of construction.

Still, should the cable be laid, in addition to the prospect of ending aggravating usage caps, Kordia estimates New Zealanders will save almost $1.5 billion US on Internet access between now and 2020.

America's Broadband Emergency Plan Allows Up to Three Cat-Chasing-Laser-Pointer videos per day

The mainstream media loves a scare story.  Suggestions that a national H1N1 pandemic could bring the Internet as we know it to its knees is a surefire way to get plenty of attention.

The Chicago Tribune, among others, reports that a nationwide outbreak of virus forcing 40% of American workers to remain housebound could result in too many people sitting at home watching Hulu, bringing the entire Internet to a screeching halt.

The answer? Shut down video streaming sites and throttle users during national emergencies.

Of course, even more interesting is what never turns up in these kinds of stories — the news behind the sensationalist headlines.

The report on which this story is based comes courtesy of the General Accounting Office.  The GAO doesn’t simply issue reports willy-nilly.  A member or members of Congress specifically request the government office to research and report back on the issues that concern them.  In this instance, the report comes at the request of:

• Rep. Henry Waxman
• Rep. John D. Dingell
• Rep. Joe Barton
• Rep. Barney Frank
• Rep. Bennie G. Thompson
• Rep. Rick Boucher
• Rep. Cliff Stearns
• Rep. Edward J. Markey

The congressmen weren’t worrying exclusively about your broadband interests.  The GAO notes the study came from concern that such a pandemic could impact the financial services sector (the people that brought you the near-Depression of 2008-09).  The Wall Street crowd could be left without broadband while recovering from flu, and that simply wouldn’t do.

“Concerns exist that a more severe pandemic outbreak than 2009’s could cause large numbers of people staying home to increase their Internet use and overwhelm Internet providers’ network capacities. Such network congestion could prevent staff from broker-dealers and other securities market participants from teleworking during a pandemic. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for ensuring that critical telecommunications infrastructure is protected. GAO was asked to examine a pandemic’s impact on Internet congestion and what actions can be and are being taken to address it, the adequacy of securities market organizations’ pandemic plans, and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) oversight of these efforts,” the report states.

Putting aside my personal desire that a little less broadband for deal-making, bailout-demanding “kings of the world” might not be a bad idea, the GAO’s report concludes what we already know — the business model of residential broadband is based on sharing connections and when too many people stay home and use them, it’s slow and doesn’t work well.

Providers do not build networks to handle 100 percent of the total traffic that could be generated because users are neither active on the network all at the same time, nor are they sending maximum traffic at all times. Instead, providers use statistical models based upon past users’ patterns and projected growth to estimate the likely peak load of traffic that could occur and then design and build networks based on the results of the statistical model to accommodate at least this level. According to one provider, this engineering method serves to optimize available capacity for all users. For example, under a cable architecture, 200 to 500 individual cable modems may be connected to a provider’s CMTS, depending on average usage in an area. Although each of these individual modems may be capable of receiving up to 7 or 8 megabits per second (Mbps) of incoming information, the CMTS can transmit a maximum of only about 38 Mbps. Providers’ staff told us that building the residential parts of networks to be capable of handling 100 percent of the traffic that all users could potentially generate would be prohibitively expensive.

In other words, guess your customer demand correctly and 200-500 homes can all share one 38Mbps connection.  Guess incorrectly, or put off expanding that network to meet the anticipated demands because your company wants to collect “cost savings” from reduced investment, and everyone’s connection slows down, especially at peak times.

One way to dramatically boost capacity for cable operators is to bond multiple channels of broadband service together, using the latest DOCSIS 3 standard.  It provides cable operators with increased flexibility to meet growing demands on their network without spending top dollar on wholesale infrastructure upgrades.  Many operators are already reaping the rewards this upgrade provides, by charging customers higher prices for higher speed service.  But it also makes network management easier without inconveniencing existing customers with slowdowns during peak usage.

The GAO didn’t need 77 pages to produce a report that concludes broadband usage skyrockets when people are at home.  Just watching holiday shopping traffic online spike during deal days like “Cyber Monday,” after Thanksgiving would illustrate that.  Should 40 percent of Americans stay home from work, instead of browsing the Internet from their work machines, they’ll be doing it from home.  That moves the bottleneck from commercial broadband accounts to residential broadband networks.

The GAO says such congestion could create all sorts of problems for the financial services sector, slowing down their broadband access.

Providers’ options for addressing expected pandemic-related Internet congestion include providing extra capacity, using network management controls, installing direct lines to organizations, temporarily reducing the maximum transmission rate, and shutting down some Internet sites. Each of these methods is limited either by technical difficulties or questions of authority. In the normal course of business, providers attempt to address congestion in particular neighborhoods by building out additional infrastructure—for example, by adding new or expanding lines and cables. Internet provider staff told us that providers determine how much to invest in expanding network infrastructure based on business expectations. If they determine that a demand for increased capacity exists that can profitably be met, they may choose to invest to increase network capacity in large increments using a variety of methods such as replacing old equipment and increasing the number of devices serving particular neighborhoods. Providers will not attempt to increase network capacity to meet the increased demand resulting from a pandemic, as no one knows when a pandemic outbreak is likely to occur or which neighborhoods would experience congestion. Staff at Internet providers whom we interviewed said they monitor capacity usage constantly and try to run their networks between 40 and 80 percent capacity at peak hours. They added that in the normal course of business, their companies begin the process to expand capacity when a certain utilization threshold is reached, generally 70 to 80 percent of full capacity over a sustained period of time at peak hours.

However, during a pandemic, providers are not likely to be able to address congestion by physically expanding capacity in residential neighborhoods for several reasons. First, building out infrastructure can be very costly and takes time to complete. For example, one provider we spoke with said that it had spent billions of dollars building out infrastructure across the nation over time, and adding capacity to large areas quickly is likely not possible. Second, another provider told us that increasing network capacity requires the physical presence of technicians and advance planning, including preordering the necessary equipment from suppliers or manufacturers. The process can take anywhere from 6 to 8 weeks from the time the order is placed to actual installation. According to this provider, a major constraint to increasing capacity is the number of technicians the firm has available to install the equipment. In addition to the cost and time associated with expanding capacity, during a pandemic outbreak providers may also experience high absenteeism due to staff illnesses, and thus might not have enough staff to upgrade network capacities. Providers said they would, out of necessity, refrain from provisioning new residential services if their staff were reduced significantly during a pandemic. Instead, they would focus on ensuring services for the federal government priority communication programs and performing network management techniques to re-route traffic around congested areas in regional networks or the national backbone. However, these activities would likely not relieve congestion in the residential Internet access networks.

It’s clear some broadband providers are not willing to change their business models to redefine congestion from measurements taken during peak usage when speeds slow, to those that anticipate and tolerate traffic spikes.  That means making due with what broadband providers are delivering today and developing technical and legal means to ration, traffic shape, or simply cut access to high bandwidth traffic during ‘appropriate emergencies.’  Right on cue, the high bandwidth barrage of self-serving provider talking points are on display in the report:

Providers identified one technically feasible alternative that has the potential to reduce Internet congestion during a pandemic, but raised concerns that it could violate customer service agreements and thus would require a directive from the government to implement. Although providers cannot identify users at the computer level to manage traffic from that point, two providers stated that if the residential Internet access network in a particular neighborhood was experiencing congestion, a provider could attempt to reduce congestion by reducing the amount of traffic that each user could send to and receive from his or her network. Such a reduction would require adjusting the configuration file within each customer’s modem to temporarily reduce the maximum transmission speed that that modem was capable of performing—for example, by reducing its incoming capability from 7 Mbps to 1 Mbps. However, according to providers we spoke with, such reductions could violate the agreed-upon levels of services for which customers have paid. Therefore, under current agreements, two providers indicated they would need a directive from the government to take such actions.

Shutting down specific Internet sites would also reduce congestion, although many we spoke with expressed concerns about the feasibility of such an approach. Overall Internet congestion could be reduced if Web sites that accounted for significant amounts of traffic—such as those with video streaming—were shut down during a pandemic. According to one recently issued study, the number of adults who watch videos on video-sharing sites has nearly doubled since 2006, far outpacing the growth of many other Internet activities. However, most providers’ staff told us that blocking users from accessing such sites, while technically possible, would be very difficult and, in their view, would not address the congestion problem and would require a directive from the government.

Enjoy up to one Hogan's Heroes episode per day during the H1N1 flu pandemic

You have to love some of the players in the broadband industry who trot out their most-favored “network management” talking points to handle a national emergency.  It’s interesting to note providers told the GAO they were concerned with violating customer agreements regarding speed guarantees, when most providers never guarantee residential service speeds.  Their first solution is the Net Neutrality-busting traffic throttle, to slow everyone down to ration the “good enough for you” network in your neighborhood.  Shutting down too-popular, high bandwidth websites like Hulu (no worries – you can watch your favorite shows on our cable TV package) is apparently someone’s good idea, but considering providers admit it wouldn’t actually solve the congestion problem, one’s imagination can ponder what other problems such a shutdown might solve.

One provider indicated that such blocking would be difficult because determining which sites should be blocked would be a very subjective process. Additionally, this provider noted that technologically savvy site operators could change their Internet protocol addresses, allowing users to access the site regardless. Another provider told us that some of these large bandwidth sites stream critical news information. Furthermore, some state, local, and federal government offices and agencies, including DHS, currently use or have plans to increase their use of social media Web sites and to use video streaming as a means to communicate with the public. Shutting down such sites without affecting pertinent information would be a challenge for providers and could create more Internet congestion as users would repeatedly try to access these sites. According to one provider, two added complications are the potential liability resulting from lawsuits filed by businesses that lose revenue when their sites are shutdown or restricted and potential claims of anticompetitive practices, denial of free speech, or both. Some providers said that the operators of specific Internet sites could shut down their respective sites with less disruption and more effectively than Internet providers, and suggested that a better course of action would be for the government to work directly with the site operators.

A very subjective process indeed, but one many providers have sought to keep within their “network management” control as they battle Net Neutrality.  One would think “potential claims of anti-competitive practices” would represent an understatement, particularly if cable industry-operated TV Everywhere theoretically kept right on running even while Hulu could not.  As long time net users already know, outright censorship or content blockades almost always meet resistance from enterprising net users who make it their personal mission to get around such limits.

Expanding broadband networks to provide a better safety cushion during periods of peak usage is looking better and better.

Providers could help reduce the potential for a pandemic to cause Internet congestion by ongoing expansions of their networks’ capacities. Some providers are upgrading their networks by moving to higher capacity modems or fiber-to-the-home systems. For example, some cable providers are introducing a network specification that will increase the download capacity of residential networks from the 38 Mbps to about 152 to 155 Mbps. In addition to cable network upgrades, at least one telecommunications provider is offering fiber-to-the home, which is a broadband service operating over a fiber-optic communications network. Specifically, fiber-to-the-home Internet service is designed to provide Internet access with connection speeds ranging from 10 Mbps to 50 Mbps.

Hello.

Sounds like a plan to me, and not just for the benefit of the Wall Street crowd sick at home with the flu.  Such network upgrades can be economical and profitable when leveraged to upsell the broadband enthusiast to higher speed service tiers.  During periods of peak usage, such networks will withstand considerably more demand and provide a better answer to that nagging congestion problem.

The alternative is Comcast or Time Warner Cable, in association with the Department of Homeland Security, having to appear on Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room telling Americans they have a broadband rationing plan that will give you six options of usage per day.  Choose any one:

• Up to three videos of cats chasing laser pointers on YouTube
• One episode of Hogan’s Heroes
• Up to six videos of your friends playing Guitar Hero on Dailymotion
• Unlimited access to Drugstore.com to browse remedies
• Five MySpace videos of your favorite bands
• Up to 500 “tweets” boring your followers with every possible detail of your stuck-at-home-sick routine

When utilities want to “charge you for what you use,” it would be nice to trust the meter is accurately measuring your usage, California consumer advocates say.

In a growing controversy, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is now being accused of installing so-called “smart meters” that were smart for PG&E profits, but financially devastating for California consumers who face higher bills and growing questions about just how accurate those “smart meters” really are.

Customers across California who have had new meters installed, which are supposed to help consumers save energy by charging lower prices at off-peak usage times of day, report enormously higher bills from PG&E after installation.

State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter (Kern County), reports he has seen bills from customers that don’t begin to make sense.

California Senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter/Kern County)

“One farmer was charged $11,857 for running a piece of equipment that was never turned on. A local attorney at the hearing clutched a $500 bill from July, a month in which she was visiting family out of state and almost every appliance in her house was shut off,” he reports.

Florez quotes the woman — “My smart meter keeps reading these spikes in usage at noon. But no one was in the house,” she said. “It’s obvious to me that this technology is not ready for prime time.”

Customers across the state with smart meters have reported similar stories, and are angry with PG&E’s response to their concerns, which can be boiled down to, “the meter is right, you are wrong, now pay us.”

PG&E claims that during its own internal reviews, it found nobody being overcharged. Spokesman Jeff Smith says “in all 1700 of those cases we have not found an instance thus far of the smart meter transmitting inaccurate information or incorrect usage information.”

The California Public Utilities Commission doesn’t think that’s enough and has begun ordering an independent review of the “smart meter” program and accuracy of meter readings.

Liz Keogh spent 14 years collecting and analyzing data at the Institute for Social Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and now lives in Bakersfield, California.  She has been pulling out her old PG&E bills and records showing her utility use all the way back to 1983.  What she found since the “smart meter” was installed on her home was disturbing.

Her analysis was printed in the San Francisco Chronicle:

My July, August and September 2009 bills showed the highest usage and cost in 26-plus years, even though I rarely go over “baseline usage.” The dollar difference from 2008 to 2009 was $20 to $30 each month. Billing costs are a product of usage multiplied by kilowatt-hour rates, which, like the federal income tax structure, is “tiered,” so that the more you use, the more you pay – and at higher and higher rates. Analysis of usage is the first step toward understanding fluctuations in cost.According to the smart meter installed on Sept. 12, 2007, the increase in my 2008-09 usage over 2007 was:

	2008	2009
May	+5.6%	+28.6%
June	+7.5%	+32.6%
July	+10%	+50.2%
Aug.	+3.1%	+41.1%
Sept.	-4.8%	+67.9%
Oct.	+4.9%	NA

PG&E’s own data show there was not a significant difference in temperatures for each comparable month. Why, then, did my “usage” increase range from 30 percent to 70 percent in 2009, while the 2008 increases were no more than 10 percent?

Simple answer: Meter malfunctioning, whether accidental and idiosyncratic, or, as some claim, intentional.

The suspicion that funny business is going on might be justified when considering Bakersfield residents have been through this all before.

“[Several years ago] Bakersfield is where PG&E first realized it had made a $500 million mistake, installing tens of thousands of inferior meters that would never live up to the promise. So the utility purchased a new generation of meters from Silver Spring Networks Inc. of Redwood City. PG&E insists that these new meters are glitch-free, though it concedes that it has tested only 50 out of 250,000 meters in Kern County,” Florez said.

At a time when some broadband providers want to install their own meters to overcharge customers for their Internet service, the PG&E experience is telling.  Independent oversight of any meter comes down to the enforcement mechanism available to guarantee accuracy.  But broadband service in the United States is unregulated, and no such enforcement mechanism exists.

And just when you thought you could believe the rhetoric that utility customers who conserve their usage will save more money, another electric and gas utility in San Diego filed a rate increase request that will charge customers who have managed to cut their usage even higher prices than those who have not.

KGET-TV Bakersfield talked with Senator Florez on September 23 about the SmartMeter controversy (4 minutes)

More video coverage below the jump.

… Continue Reading

With all of the discussion about Net Neutrality recently, the mainstream media often has a difficult time absorbing what this concept means and ends up confusing it with Internet Overcharging schemes.  CNN is the latest to make the mistake — not once but twice in three days as Nicole Lapin and Tony Harris discuss how Net Neutrality policies will impact consumers.

Lapin suggests this week’s decision by the FCC to begin writing a formal Net Neutrality policy was a done deal, and that it would prevent Internet providers from charging higher prices for consumers who use their broadband accounts a lot.

Both statements are incorrect.

The FCC is only at the start of writing a formal Net Neutrality policy.  The basic tenets Chairman Julius Genachowski would like to see a part of a formal Net Neutrality rulemaking are on the table, but there is plenty of time between now and a final vote for telecommunications industry lobbyists to sweep several pages from Genachowski’s wish-list to the floor (and replace them with their own.)

Nothing in the proposed Net Neutrality policies would currently prohibit providers from moving to Internet Overcharging schemes like usage allowances, overlimit fees, and other pricing changes that are ultimately designed to reduce usage and extract higher pricing from consumers.

Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) has a bill to put a stop the Internet Overcharging schemes that continues to need your support and advocacy with your member of Congress.  See the Take Action section for further details.

For the record:

Net Neutrality: A set of policies that prevents Internet providers from discriminating against certain broadband services or website content providers with speed throttles, blocks, or other impediments.  Providers would not be allowed to set up special premium traffic lanes with faster speed delivery of online web content for “preferred partners,” while leaving everyone else on a slower traffic lane.  It preserves the Internet we have today.

Internet Overcharging: Practices by broadband providers to limit usage of your broadband service and/or charge higher pricing based on arbitrary claims that consumers are “overusing” their unlimited broadband service.  These include usage caps or limits, usage allowances, consumption billing that includes usage allowances, overlimit fees/penalties for exceeding those limits, speed throttles that kick in when a user reaches their usage limit, and any accompanying services sold to consumers who think they might exceed their plan allowance (overlimit “insurance” policies, extra usage blocks sold at premium prices, etc.)

CNN’s Tony Harris talks with Nicole Lapin about Net Neutrality, and how the policy impacts small businesses that sell on the web.  (October 21 – 3 minutes)

Earlier today the two revisited the issue of Net Neutrality to explore the outcome of the FCC Net Neutrality decision:

CNN’s Tony Harris and Nicole Lapin discuss the “victory” for Net Neutrality proponents.  (October 23 – 2 minutes)

One day before the Federal Communications Commission in Washington announced draft guidelines to establish an American Net Neutrality policy, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced its own guidelines to govern what Canadian broadband providers can and cannot do with the Internet traffic they deliver to millions of Canadian consumers.  While Bell (Canada), the nation’s largest telecommunications company praised the CRTC for its provider-friendly ruling, consumer groups varied their responses from “a step in the right direction” to “weak” to “here comes more gouging.”

The CRTC Net Neutrality policy for Canada essentially permits providers to continue to throttle broadband speeds for both retail and wholesale customers, and block traffic altogether should the CRTC grant permission in “exceptional cases,” as long as the provider discloses the practice to consumers up front, and warns them in advance of any policy changes that further slow their connections.

Laurel Russworm, who runs Stop Usage Based Billing, was not pleased.

“The CRTC decision doesn’t have a silver lining I can find; in fact they essentially said that usage based billing and caps are good tools to use to fight congestion. All Bell Canada has to do is warn us first, then they can gouge as they please. They’ve deferred making a decision on usage based billing until after the court challenges are dismissed, but I’m not holding my breath,” Russworm wrote.

On Wednesday the CRTC decided that Internet providers in Canada need measures to manage the traffic on their networks at certain times to deal with what providers claim to be a congestion problem.  At hearings held this past summer, several CRTC commissioners were receptive to the claims providers made that Canadian broadband does not have the capacity their American neighbors have.  Providers like Bell and Rogers claim that peer to peer traffic and increasing consumption of high bandwidth services have created capacity shortages on their networks, requiring traffic management which artificially slows certain traffic on their networks at “peak times.”  Canadian broadband providers almost universally also impose Internet Overcharging schemes on their customers, limiting customer use and charging them overlimit penalties for exceeding usage allowances.

The commission accepted the providers’ claims and gave the green light to those practices, but said before a provider literally blocks access to online services, or throttles time sensitive traffic on services like Voice Over IP telephone or two-way video conferencing to the point it becomes “degraded,” it needs to get Commission permission first.

Mirko Bibic, Bell Canada’s senior vice-president of regulatory and government affairs, told The Globe and Mail the ruling gives carriers the right to run their businesses the way they see fit. “We’re the experts, and we get the flexibility to determine how to manage our networks to give the user the best experience,” he said.

Bell already “throttles” its Internet service by slowing peer-to-peer downloading between 4:30 p.m. and 1 a.m. to make sure the network is not overloaded by a relatively small number of people transferring large video and music files.

Independent Internet providers are among the biggest proponents of Net Neutrality, and a ban on Internet Overcharging schemes known in Canada as “usage based billing.”  Many Canadian broadband providers obtain connectivity through wholesale accounts purchased from Bell.  The Canadian phone giant imposed both speed throttles and usage based billing on their wholesale customers.  Those costs, and the speed bumps that go with them, are now increasingly passed on to consumers.  Independent providers fear being put out of business.

For many of them, Wednesday’s decision might as well never have happened.

“This has really not changed anything,” Tom Copeland, chair of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, told PC World.

Copeland said the “biggest, most glaring omission” from the ruling is the lack of restraints on the time of day or how long suppliers like phone or cable companies can manipulate traffic. “So we could continue to see traffic management every day of the year,” he said.

“We’re still not addressing the cause of the problem,” he added: “Either weak points in the network, or abuse by users.” Most casual users of peer-to-peer applications — the biggest offending programs in the eyes of providers – aren’t the problem, he said.

“We just went backwards at warp speed,” lamented John Lawford, counsel for a coalition of consumer groups that fought for an end to throttling of Internet traffic of consumers, “ while we watch the U.S. rocket ahead.”

“The CRTC has said in this decision that ISPs own your content and own your Internet connection” said Lawford, “You just got owned.”

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre represented the Consumers’ Association of Canada, Canada Without Poverty and Option consommateurs during the hearings on Net Neutrality.  PIAC argued that the Telecommunications Act required ISPs not to interfere with customers’ Internet traffic unless such traffic was clearly harming other users of the network and not otherwise.  “ISPs should act as common carriers and just carry traffic, not as broadcasters deciding what you watch” continued Lawford, “but now they can decide what gets through – and how much they get to charge you for the privilege.”  Lawford also noted the CRTC’s requirement for the ISPs to disclose their “Internet traffic management practices” will not actually stop any of the practices.

The CRTC has repeatedly taken broadband industry-friendly positions in direct opposition to Canadian consumer interests, helping to set the stage for Canada’s rapid decline in broadband leadership.  The country’s standing in broadband rankings has taken a stunning fall from its earlier top-shelf position.  Regulatory policies that permit abusive, anti-competitive practices and reward providers for rationing broadband instead of investing in expanding it are at the heart of the problem.

Since the CRTC has taken positions more worthy of a industry trade group than an independent regulator, an increasing number of Canadians are demanding the CRTC lead or get out of the way.  A large group of Canadian voters upset about any issue is sure to attract politicians, and the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP) has arrived.

Charlie Angus (NDP)

Charlie Angus, New Democrat Digital Affairs Critic and MP for Timmins-James Bay, who already is on record opposing Internet Overcharging schemes, says the CRTC dropped the ball on Net Neutrality.

“Yesterday’s CRTC decision on Internet traffic-management practices is a blow to the future of digital innovation in Canada,” Angus said in a statement.

“This interference [from traffic management] will be bad news for small third-party competitors and leaves consumers subject to digital snooping and interference from cable giants,” he added.

“Basically the CRTC has left the wolves in charge of the henhouse. ISP giants have been given the green light to shape traffic on the internet in favor of their corporate interests,” he said. “This decision is a huge blow to the future competitiveness of the Internet.”

Angus says that the premise of today’s decision – that notification from the ISP will allow customers to make an informed decision on where to buy Internet service – misses the harsh reality that the market for Internet service in Canada is not nearly competitive enough to work.

“Canada has fallen to the back of the pack in Internet service provision and pricing after leading the way for years. This is the direct result of a small band of ISP giants blocking out competition,” Angus said. “This decision clears the way for ISPs to squeeze out third-party players who are attempting to provide better price and service options.”

South of the border, the FCC has taken clear steps toward the establishment of Internet neutrality on U.S. networks.

Angus said that principle of Net Neutrality should be at the center of Internet policy in Canada, and that the CRTC has missed a golden opportunity with yesterday’s decision.

“The principle of Net Neutrality must be a cornerstone of the innovation agenda. The CRTC has once again acted as the rubber stamp for large ISP and cable players to dominate the market and decide which traffic goes in the fast lane and which traffic gets stuck in the slow lane. This decision continues a long and dismal tradition of Canada’s communication policy decisions chipping away at the public interest to the benefit of a few corporate giants.”

Dissolve the CRTC, a group collecting signatures to petition for the closure of the Commission, also made several comments about the CRTC decision.

Among their conclusions:

• The new policy leaves the door open to providers deciding their economic interests are better served from traffic management practices like throttles and usage limits than network investments.  Short term limits may serve the interests of stockholders, but could discourage long term investments needed to create new 21st century broadband platforms;
• The Commission’s encouragement that providers make additional investments in their networks is likely to fall on deaf ears.  It was Bell’s lack of investment in their broadband network which led to the traffic management practices, and the recent hearings about them, in the first place.  Without mandates, there is no real pressure on Bell to change their investment strategy.
• The Commission’s policy to regulate this issue through a user complaint process that calls out bad actors has no historical precedent of working.  The CRTC has a long history of ignoring public involvement in telecommunications proceedings, and does not like to involve themselves with individual customer complaints.  Campaigns to flood the CRTC with complaints on specific issues using their language may be the only way to get them to investigate.  Additionally, complaints that call out the disparity in network management policies between wholesale and retail accounts may only lead to additional restrictions on both types of accounts, making a bad situation even worse.

Canadians must contact their elected officials and demand federal legislation to enact true consumer protection and broadband reform policies to restore Canada to a position of leadership in broadband.  The CRTC is ineffective and must not be the final arbiter on these important issues.

Phillip Dampier

The Wall Street Journal today published an article reviewing the landscape of flat rate broadband service and how some Internet providers want to change it.

The article quotes me on the issue of Internet Overcharging becoming a political football in the Net Neutrality debate.

“This could come down to carriers saying, ‘If you don’t allow us to manage our networks the way we see fit, then we will just have to cap everything,’ ” says Phillip Dampier, a consumer advocate focusing on technology issues in Rochester, N.Y. “They’ll make it an either/or thing: give them more control over their network or expect metered broadband.”

Mr. Dampier was among those who forced Time Warner Cable to shelve a metered Internet pilot program in several cities last year. The company, which had argued the plan would be a fairer way to charge for access, acknowledged it was a “debacle.” It won’t say if it plans to revive the trials.

Unfortunately, the article never bothers to mention Stop the Cap!, the website dedicated to fighting these overcharging schemes.

AT&T weighs in on their experiment to overcharge consumers in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada, and analysts think Net Neutrality arguments may give providers an excuse to expand those experiments, launch price increases and blame it on Net Neutrality policies:

“Some type of usage-based model, for those customers who have abnormally high usage patterns, seems inevitable,” an AT&T spokesman says. AT&T declined to provide more details on its trials.

“Unquestionably, the carriers erred in their initial selling of broadband with a flat rate,” says Elroy Jopling, research director of Gartner Inc. “They assumed no one would use it as much as they do now, but then along came high-definition movies. They’re now trying to get around that mistake.”

Network neutrality deals primarily with ensuring that Internet providers don’t favor any online traffic over any other. Still, Mr. Jopling and other analysts argue, the net neutrality debate might provide the carriers with an opening to argue for changing that pricing.

“With network neutrality enforced, the only other option for carriers is to charge by the byte or to raise the flat-rate pricing,” says Johna Till Johnson, president of Nemertes Research. “Right now they’re just deciding which one to do. Just be prepared to pay more.”

It's "Rep. Eric Massa," Not 'Joe Messa'

The article has several flaws.

• It mis-identifies Rep. Eric Massa (D-New York) as “Rep. Joe Messa.”  Rep. Massa introduced legislation to ban Internet Overcharging when companies cannot produce actual evidence to justify it, particularly in the limited competitive marketplace for broadband in the United States.
• The article fails to mention the usage limits proposed by smaller broadband providers, including Frontier’s infamous 5GB usage definition in their Acceptable Use Policy.  This is a very important fact to consider when the article quotes Professor Andrew Odlyzko, an independent authority on broadband usage, as stating the average broadband consumer uses triple that amount (15 gigabytes per month).
• The quotation about the number of e-mails or web page views available under plan allowances that routinely appear in such articles ignores the increasing use of higher bandwidth applications like online video.  Telling a consumer they can send 75 million e-mails is irrelevant information because no consumer would ever need to worry about usage limits if they only used their account for web page browsing and e-mail usage.  They very much do have to be concerned if they use their service to watch online video from Hulu or Netflix, or use one of the online backup services.
• The article makes no mention of publicly available financial reports from broadband providers like Time Warner Cable that prove that at the same time their profits on broadband service are increasing, the company’s costs to provide the service continue to decline, along with the dollar amounts they spend to maintain and expand that network to meet demand.  Providing readers with insight into the true financial picture of a broadband provider, instead of simply quoting the public relations line of the day would seem particularly appropriate for The Wall Street Journal.
• The article doesn’t make mention that the same providers arguing increased Internet traffic is creating a problem for them are also working to launch an online video distribution platform that will rival Hulu in size and scope.  TV Everywhere will consume an enormous amount of the broadband network they claim can’t handle today’s traffic without Internet Overcharging schemes being thrown on customers.  Of course, such usage limits are very convenient for companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T, which are now in the business of selling pay television programming to consumers.  Should a consumer choose to watch all of their television online instead of paying for a cable package, a usage allowance will help put a stop to that very quickly, as will planned restrictions that only provide online video to “authenticated” existing pay television subscribers.

One thing remains certain – providers are still itching to overcharge you for your broadband service.  Consumers and the public interest groups that want to represent them must stand unified in opposition to Internet Overcharging schemes and for Net Neutrality protection, and never accept sacrificing one for the other.