A snake in the grass... defective water meters can result in customers paying hundreds of dollars for water they never used.

“Paying for what you use” is an idea some broadband providers want to adopt to re-price broadband service in an effort to capture additional revenue and profits from “high usage” customers.  But when the provider reads the meter without any independent oversight, customers can be billed for any amount of usage — accurate or not — and have little recourse to prove their case if overbilled.

At least water customers in Charlotte, N.C., are getting an independent audit of their water meters after Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities began sending some customers bills in the hundreds of dollars for a single month’s usage.

Broadband providers who bill consumers based on their usage answer to no one.  Completely deregulated, providers need not submit to independent verification of their measurement tools.

“There is no Bureau of Weights and Measures verifying broadband usage meters anywhere in North America that I’m aware of,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Mitch.  In fact, in several countries the telecommunications industry is specifically excluded from oversight by such accountability agencies.

In Australia, large businesses are often the first to discover overbilling because of their accounting practices which track usage over time.  Australian telecommunications companies are exempt from monitoring by weights and measurement oversight.  Canadians have complained about metered charge accuracy for several years now, especially when usage doesn’t appear on web-based “usage gauges” for days.  Nobody verifies those meters, either.

In late June, the Charlotte Observer reported a sampling audit of 9,000 out of 250,000 water meters found a significant error rate of at least 1.4 percent.  While that’s a small percentage, the numbers add up — more than 3,000 area customers would be billed erroneously at that error rate, some for hundreds of dollars more than they actually owe.

The audit is continuing, but early findings show that the utility has a significant problem in how it bills customers.

The audit so far has found 78 residential accounts where there was a mismatch of more than 1 CCF (100 cubic feet) of water usage. The mismatch was between the mechanical water meter, which is considered reliable, and the more error-prone electronic transmitters that send water usage data to the utility.

Some of the mismatches suggested that the customer was billed too much, while others showed the customer was billed too little.

“Some (of the accounts) were for only a few dollars, said Barry Gullet, CMU director. “Some were several hundred dollars.”

CMU calls the results thus far “not unexpected and within industry norms.”  But when customers called to complain about suddenly higher bills, CMU feigned ignorance, telling several customers the meters were accurate — perhaps they had a leak or washed their cars too many times.  One customer reporting a bill four times higher than average was told to hire a plumber at his expense to repair the problem.  It later turned out to be an erroneous meter.  Now that customer is also out the cost of the plumber visit.  CMU inflamed matters further in early June when it blamed the news media for “hyping” a non-existent problem, despite a finding from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Advisory Committee showing an electronic equipment failure rate three times the national average.

That CMU is being held accountable by an independent audit was an important part of the process that eventually led them to admit there may be a problem with meter accuracy, say city officials.

“It is a breath of fresh air to have some acknowledgment that there is a problem and a sense about what to do about how to move forward with it,” Mayor Anthony Foxx told WCNC-TV.

CMU’s final report will be out in September.  By then a third party auditor will have looked at 9,000 meters.

The question for broadband consumers is whether you trust your cable or phone company to read your usage and bill you fairly if they know nobody is watching them do it.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WCNC-TV in Charlotte ran three reports on the water meter controversy, starting in December 2009 when some enormous water bills arrived as unwelcome Christmas gifts from the local water provider.  (6 minutes)

Share/Save

Netflix is coming to Canada.  Sort of.

Canadians will be able to sign up for Netflix’s on-demand video streaming service beginning this fall, but will Canadians be interested in using the unlimited service on their usage-limited broadband accounts?

Netflix is not planning on bringing its rental-by-mail service to Canada, instead relying exclusively on streaming its library on-demand over the Internet. Netflix currently licenses streaming rights for over 17,000 titles in its 100,000 plus library.  How many of those titles with be licensed for Canadian subscribers is not yet known, nor is an exact price for the service.  Netflix will launch for English-speaking Canadians at the outset, with French to come later.  This is the first time Netflix is making its service available outside of the United States.

But many Canadians are questioning the value of Netflix in their heavily-usage-limited country.  Most Canadian ISPs have either chosen or been forced to limit subscribers’ broadband usage.  Even ISPs that want to offer unlimited service find flat rate wholesale pricing nearly impossible to get because of Bell’s stranglehold on the market.  Cable providers like Rogers have implemented their own usage limits to boost revenue and keep costs down.

For Canadians living under an average usage cap of 40-60 gigabytes per month, adding streaming video will only eat their allowance that much faster.

“Netflix and the Canadian press covering this story have ignored the reality of bit-capped Canada,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Jeffrey from Calgary.  “I would be paying $75 a month for a broadband account and be limited in how I could use the service.  The CRTC (Canada’s equivalent of the Federal Communications Commission) has been in the providers’ pockets for years and this is why high bandwidth services bypass Canada or risk failure if offered here.”

Rogers, one of Canada's biggest cable companies, also happens to own one of the largest chains of video rental stores: Rogers Plus

Jeffrey believes Canada’s largest broadband providers, including Bell, Rogers, Shaw, Telus, and Vidéotron will never allow Netflix.ca to gain the kind of foothold it has in the United States.

“These companies all own or control Canada’s cable, IPTV, and satellite TV services, all of which are threatened by an American company like Netflix,” Jeffrey notes. “They’ve already got universal usage limits on their accounts, but these guys will also run to the CRTC and Canadian government to throw up roadblocks over everything from copyright and licensing issues to Canadian content rules and the initially ignored Québécois.”

Jeffrey believes more than anything else, Internet Overcharging schemes will serve their role in keeping would-be competitors under control.

“In Canada, we already had the debate about who gets to use our pipes for free,” he says. “Thanks to the CRTC, only the providers get to use them for free.  Everyone else pays a usage tax to them which fattens their bottom lines while stunting the growth of Canadian broadband.”

In Quebec, it’s much the same story.  Asperger notes Zip.ca, a Canadian rent-by-mail service, can get him 20 new DVD releases a month for around $25.  If he signed up for Netflix, anything beyond five DVD’s a month would put him over his limit forcing him to “pay and pay, and then pay some more.”  With Canadian ISP’s increasing their penalty rates for exceeding usage allowances, the overlimit fee could easily exceed the cost of just sticking with Zip.ca’s by-mail service.

Or, for many Quebecers, the next best alternative is Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, which offers an enormous collection of DVD’s that can be checked out for free.

Canadian press accounts of Netflix’s imminent entry into Canada have largely ignored the limits Canadian Internet providers impose on their subscribers, something readily noted by readers who comment on those stories.  Canadian consumers are well aware of their usage limits, and they avoid services that could expose them to even higher broadband bills.

Those who use their Internet service heavily, unaware of overlimit fees up to $5 per gigabyte, will be educated by bill shock when their next bill arrives in the mail.  After that, no more Netflix.ca for them.

Still, Netflix.ca will probably deliver a challenge to the already-stressed Canadian video rental market where Blockbuster and Rogers Plus duke it out for a dwindling number of renters.  Price cuts have not stopped the erosion of interest in DVD rentals, and Blockbuster is mired in more than $900 million in debt, trying to avoid bankruptcy.

The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission's support of industry-promoted Internet Overcharging schemes may limit Netflix's success in Canada.

If Netflix’s streaming library, mostly of titles two or more years old, is deemed sufficient by many Canadians, it could also cause a wave of cancellations of premium movie channels and other cable services.

The Ottawa Citizen reports some analysts believe Netflix.ca will cause an earthquake in the Canadian entertainment marketplace.

Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst based in London, Ont., believes Canadians can expect a major entertainment industry shakeup this fall.

Levy says Netflix will sound the death knell for movie-rental services such as Blockbuster and Rogers Video and will force a pricing war among traditional cable and satellite TV providers who will be forced to scramble to keep customers.

“Netflix is not some Johnny-Come-Lately to the market. Even though they are new to Canada, they have been so successful in the U.S. that only a Canadian living underneath a rock wouldn’t be aware of their brand,” Levy said. “It’s the most seismic change to the content distribution system landscape that we have seen. It forces the incumbents to change their business model.”

Levy said the arrival of Netflix will allow casual TV watchers to cut their satellite and cable TV bills in favour of Netflix’s all-you-can-eat monthly offering. He said the $9 U.S. a month charged by the company was carefully thought out and he expects to see a similar price on the service later this year.

Click here to view the embedded video.

CBC News discussed the introduction of Netflix Canada and how it will work with Netflix vice president Steve Swasey.  (5 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

CTV News and its Business News Network ran four reports on the impact usage caps might have on the service, what kinds of titles will be available, and what it means for Canada’s entertainment businesses.  (12 minutes)

Share/Save

A $24 million federal grant proposal to install 600 miles of fiber optic cable across the southern tier of New York has advanced to the “Due Diligence Phase” of federal review, making it a serious contender for approval.

The application for the “middle mile” project was submitted jointly by the Southern Tier East and Southern Tier Central Planning Development Boards to create a fiber-based backbone to facilitate so-called “last mile” projects which deliver connections directly to consumers and businesses.  If built, the project will make connectivity available to all-comers, from wireless providers trying to reach the most rural homes to cable and telephone-based broadband providers delivering enhanced speeds and service.

The Shequaga Falls, visible from W. Main Street in Montour Falls, exemplifies the terrain of many Southern Tier communities in New York.

Broome, Delaware, Otsego, Chemung, Steuben and Schuyler counties would be served by the fiber network if constructed.

The southern tier of New York, mostly defined as west to Lake Erie and east to Binghamton, is particularly lacking in broadband, in part because of very difficult terrain.  Steep sloping hills rising 1,000 feet or more, created from glacial movements, combine with level hilltops representative of the Appalachian Plateau.  In most of these areas, fields and pastures crown the high points while cropland and communities locate on the level valley floor.  Getting broadband to residents and farms involves winding cables around the hills through communities like Bath, Corning, Elmira, Hornell, Watkins Glen-Montour Falls, and Wayland.  Even larger communities like Binghamton and Ithaca have plenty of landscape to navigate.

Inside immediate town and city centers, broadband is usually provided by Time Warner Cable, Frontier Communications, Verizon, or one of several independent phone companies.  Where 30mph speed limits predominate, broadband is likely available.  Once the speed limit returns to 55mph, service becomes more spotty.

Prior efforts to expand broadband availability included:

• Public/Private Partnerships: Cooperative efforts to ease the way for private providers to extend service into previously unserved areas.  This had limited success, particularly when sufficient return on investment could not be achieved within a set time frame.  Most private providers will not wire sparsely populated areas because of the time it takes to recoup wiring and pole costs.
• Aggregation of Demand: This technical-sounding term simply means bringing neighbors together and getting them to jointly commit to sign up for broadband service if a provider will agree to extend service to their neighborhood.  This can achieve success in areas where a provider is assured of getting his initial investment back.  A few of these efforts have even shared or split the financing of some construction costs.  Mike McNamara of Haefele Cable Television, an independent cable provider serving 4,700 residents in rural sections of Tioga County, noted “last mile” access can be expensive, costing about $12,000 for them to extend cable service per mile.

The blue color represents areas in this section of the Southern Tier where no broadband service is available. (click to enlarge)

A decision on the grant is expected by September.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WETM-TV in Elmira explains the plan to expand broadband service throughout the Southern Tier of New York, if a grant can be awarded.  (1 minute)

Share/Save

Stop the Cap! reader Bones sends word the FCC needs volunteers to help keep America’s broadband providers honest about their speed claims.  But the agency warns heavily usage capped consumers they probably shouldn’t apply, and anyone consuming over 30 GB per month is disqualified.

The FCC SamKnows Broadband Community aims to gather and report statistical data on the performance of America’s broadband providers.  Thus far, most of the earlier speed results being studied by public officials come from data aggregated from voluntary visits to speed test websites.  But the data is subject to considerable variation depending on the speed test site chosen, traffic and capacity issues that only impact the route to the test site, and what else a consumer may doing with their connection during the test.  Many also conduct speed tests when a technical problem is apparent, using the speed test site to verify their suspicions.

The FCC will send 10,000 volunteers a free router that will hook up to one’s broadband connection and quietly test it several times daily.  Comprehensive measurements to be taken include latency, packet loss, DNS query times and failures, web page loading times, as well as the obligatory suite of speed tests.  The testing is done in the background and the results are uploaded to SamKnows for review.  The FCC can use the data from all of the volunteers to identify the true performance of national and regional Internet Service Providers.  Do their speed claims actually match reality?  Do they suffer from congestion problems and at what times of day?

One group of ISPs the agency will have trouble measuring are those that heavily limit their customers’ use.  In fact, the Test My ISP website warns off customers with low data caps because the project is expected to send and receive about 4 gigabytes of data in full over the course of each month. While the program designers felt that much data was so insignificant it would not create a problem, some greedy ISPs out there beg to differ.  With some providers offering usage allowances at 5 or fewer gigabytes per month, the FCC quickly learned it doesn’t want to be responsible for spiking consumer broadband bills with any overlimit fees.

As a result, they’ve asked those usage capped consumers to think twice about applying for the traditional testing program:

Our units download approximately 2GB per month and upload around 2GB. If you’re on a product with a low usage cap then we’d advise against signing up, or at least informing us beforehand so that we can apply a different testing profile.

The FCC also isn’t interested in sending test units to customers they designate as “heavy downloaders”:

We’d classify anything above 30GB per month as being too heavy for us to gather useful results.

With the increasing use of multimedia content and other high bandwidth applications being released to the Internet masses, we beg to differ with the arbitrary definition that 30 GB constitutes “heavy downloading.”  We understand the agency doesn’t want other online usage to create an issue for the accuracy of its speed tests, but they should take better care with their language.  One could use a file backup service and easily consume more then 30 GB uploading and never download more than a gigabyte.

A screenshot of the types of data SamKnows will be collecting and measuring (click to enlarge)

Other restrictions:

• You have a fixed line broadband Internet connection to your residence.  This is not for WISPs, mobile broadband, or other wireless broadband services.
• You use a standalone device to connect to your broadband service – i.e not a USB ADSL modem.
• You have a stable broadband connection (i.e. it doesn’t disconnect frequently). Note that this is just referring to the connection – not the speed.
• You have a spare power socket near your existing router (or wherever you plan to connect the unit. Keep in mind that a network cable must run between the unit and your router though! We supply a 1m cable).
• You need to be on one of the ISPs that we’re measuring.
• You are not an employee or a family member of an employee of one of the ISPs being monitored.

Also, you must agree to the following:

• Not to unplug the unit or your ISP’s router unless I’m away for an extended period of time.
• Not attempt to reverse engineer or alter the unit.
• To notify Samknows if and when I choose to change ISPs.
• To return the unit to Samknows should I no longer wish to be involved (Samknows to pay reasonable postage costs).
• To connect the unit in the way described in the documentation.
• To keep Samknows updated with valid contact details (i.e. email and postal address).

SamKnows is a British company hired by the FCC to conduct the speed test project.  SamKnows is already familiar to British broadband consumers for its comprehensive broadband availability checker showing all of the broadband choices available based on the address where service is to be installed.

The company also reports on broadband news, mostly impacting Europe.

And before the paranoid start suggesting this is Obama’s Internet Spy Box, SamKnows offers this:

However, the unit simply acts as a standard switch or standard router and does not look at any of the packets flowing across your network. It only monitors traffic volumes for the purposes of deciding when to run (or not to run!) the tests and to measure consumption.

Testing information uploaded from the unit to our servers contains no information about you whatsoever. Furthermore, all such communications are encrypted, ensuring that results cannot be tampered with en-route.

Your individual unit’s test results will be available to you alone. Your unit’s results will also be aggregated with others from the same ISP to form a larger average set of results that can be viewed publicly.

We have absolutely no intention of doing anything that may adversely affect your privacy or security.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The implications for the FCC’s national speed test program could mimic Great Britain’s, where providers were held to account for wide variations between speeds promised and those actually delivered.  Meaningful broadband reform in the States could include a requirement that providers’ marketing claims be provable, compelling at least some to perform competitive upgrades instead of delivering broken promises.  This ITN News report from last summer illustrates what happened when UK provider speed claims were put to the test.  (3 minutes)

Share/Save

Rep. Dan Maffei (D-NY)

Rep. Dan Maffei (D-New York) has begun to worry broadband consumers in his western and central New York district.

In April 2009, when Time Warner Cable’s announced Internet Overcharging experiment was upsetting customers in Rochester, Maffei claimed he was concerned about limiting broadband usage for customers in the area.  But when former Rep. Eric Massa introduced legislation to ban unjustified usage caps and consumption billing, Maffei told his constituents he wasn’t interested in Massa’s approach:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 2902, the Broadband Internet Fairness Act. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond. The Broadband Internet Fairness Act was introduced by Representative Eric Massa (NY-29) on June 16, 2009, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill would authorize the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to review volume usage service plans of major broadband internet service providers to ensure that such plans are fairly based on cost.

When Time Warner Cable announced in April that Rochester would be used as a test market for charging Internet users based upon consumption usage, I, along with Representative Massa, opposed this policy. We helped persuade Time Warner to abandon the plan in the area. At that time, Representative Massa also introduced the Broadband Internet Fairness Act.

Other utilities, like water or electricity, charge customers based on usage, but Internet users have traditionally been charged a flat fee for unlimited access to the web. The Broadband Internet Fairness Act would require Internet Service Providers that want to implement usage-based pricing plans to go through several traditional regulatory hurdles. While I share many of the goals of Representative Massa’s legislation, I do not believe passing this stand-alone bill is the right approach at this time.

Of course broadband is nothing like water or electric utilities.  In fact, Maffei’s inclusion of that reference is a classic talking point of the telecom industry.  Notice they, and Maffei, didn’t mention telephone service — the one utility that provides flat rate calling for most Americans.  It also happens to be the utility most comparable to broadband service!

New York's 25th Congressional District

But Maffei made a bad situation worse when he joined 72 other House Democrats co-signing a letter from Rep. Gene Green (D-AT&T), urging FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski not to fight a court decision overturning the agency’s ability to conduct broadband oversight.

The letter represented one giant talking point — the false premise that enforcing a fair, free, and open Internet with Net Neutrality would somehow stifle investment in broadband expansion.  Yet AT&T was required to honor the very same principles when it merged with SBC, and managed to remain a multi-billion dollar powerhouse well positioned to expand broadband service to additional customers in its ever-growing service areas.

The fact the broadband industry is a duopoly for most Americans — one that can threaten to pull back on service if it doesn’t get its way in Washington — is just one more reason the industry requires more oversight, not less.

Yet Rep. Maffei stood alone as the only member of the western New York Congressional delegation to sign his name to the agenda of big cable and phone companies.

Perhaps the congressman has forgotten these facts which trouble broadband consumers across western and central New York:

• Rochester, NY was the only city in the northeast where Time Warner sought to conduct an Internet Overcharging experiment, made possible because of limited competition in the Rochester market;
• Rochester’s other broadband provider, Frontier Communications, insists on a monthly usage allowance of just 5GB per month in its Acceptable Use Policy;
• Verizon FiOS has suspended expansion indefinitely and the service will never be available in most of the 585 area code where Frontier operates, and it will take years for most of the rest of his Syracuse district to see the service reach those areas;
• Time Warner Cable increased its broadband rates in 2010, as did Verizon;

Green’s letter dances around the real issue — telecommunications companies are spending millions to oppose pro-consumer reforms and stop a return of oversight authority the FCC lost after a recent court decision.  Without this authority, the FCC cannot implement the National Broadband Plan’s insistence that American providers not block or impede network traffic.  These Net Neutral policies preserve net freedom.  The FCC cannot even require that providers tell the truth about broadband speeds and include the company’s terms of service in plain English.

Western New York is a hotbed of consumer activism on broadband issues, particularly because we are actual victims of provider abuse.  No one knows more than we how critical 21st century broadband is to the transformation of this region’s perennially challenged economy.

Rep. Maffei needs a reminder this is a hot button issue for consumers from Irondequoit to Manlius.  Perhaps he just doesn’t fully understand what’s at stake here.  You need to remind him.

We’ve included a suggested letter you can use to help write your own.  For maximum effectiveness, include some of your own personal stories, challenges, and frustrations with your local broadband provider.  Feel free to share yours in the Comments section.

Dear Rep. Maffei:

I was extremely disappointed to discover you signed your name on a letter written by Rep. Gene Green urging FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski not to restore oversight authority over broadband.  While Rep. Green’s letter illustrates he’s mostly concerned about the well being of AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner Cable and Comcast, as a consumer I am more concerned about the broadband duopoly that exists in Rochester & Syracuse.

If the FCC does not regain its ability to oversee broadband by reclassifying it under Title II — as a telecommunications service (which it very clearly is), the FCC can effectively do nothing to stop broadband provider abuses, such as Comcast’s notorious speed throttle on customers using certain Internet websites and services. It took an FCC investigation to finally get the cable company to admit the truth — it was interfering with customers’ broadband speeds.  The oversight power the agency had was just what was needed to convince Comcast to stop.

Unfortunately, a DC Circuit Court recently disagreed it had that authority and effectively stripped it away.  Chairman Genachowski is simply seeking a return to the status quo before that court decision was handed down.  He’s not asking to regulate broadband anything like telephone service.  In fact, he’s insisted on a “light touch.”  That’s better than today’s court-imposed total-hands-off reality.

By signing Rep. Green’s letter, you effectively tell us you don’t support Net Neutrality protections that guarantee providers cannot censor or impede web traffic.  You also do nothing to protect consumers from other provider abuses.  Considering what residents of Rochester went through last year fighting a Time Warner Cable scheme that would have tripled broadband prices for the same level of service, I’m shocked you of all people would be a supporter of big telecom’s agenda.

Telecom companies are claiming that if regulations enforcing Net Neutrality are enacted, investment will suffer and broadband expansion will be slowed.  Yet AT&T was required, as part of its merger with SBC, to respect Net Neutrality for several years.  The company flourished, broadband was offered to more customers than ever, and investors liked what they saw.

The record in western New York is clear — Time Warner Cable was willing to limit its customers access to broadband service, Frontier already does in its terms and conditions, and Verizon FiOS deployment has been suspended indefinitely.  For too many of us, there are too few choices.  In fact, the only thing we can be assured of is higher pricing and a strengthened duopoly.

I strongly urge you to remove your signature from Rep. Green’s letter and get on board with consumers like myself in your district who believe deregulation and oversight failures have given us nothing but nightmares — from Wall Street to BP’s oil spill.  Let’s not make another mistake in handing cable and phone companies unfettered permission to abuse their customers.

Please get back in touch with me as soon as possible on this important matter.

Rep. Dan Maffei told constituents he was concerned about Time Warner Cable’s Internet Overcharging scheme proposed in April 2009.  At a town hall meeting in Irondequoit, New York, he admitted Time Warner Cable held near-monopoly power over consumers in Rochester.  What changed his tune when he signed on to Rep. Gene Green’s anti-consumer letter to the FCC? (April 9, 2009 — 2 minutes)

Rep. Dan Maffei’s Contact Information

Washington, D.C. Office
1630 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3701
Fax: (202) 225-4042

Syracuse Office
P.O. Box 7306,
1340 Federal Building
Syracuse, NY 13261
Phone: (315) 423-5657
Fax: (315) 423-5669

Irondequoit/Rochester Office
1280 Titus Avenue
Rochester, NY 14617
Phone: (585) 336-7291
Fax: (585) 336-7274

[Update: 11:30pm EDT: Free Press reports Rep. Maffei accepted $29,000 in contributions from telecom companies, including Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T.]

Share/Save

The United States has a goal of 100Mbps ubiquitous broadband service by 2020.  Hong Kong residents already have access to speeds up to 1Gbps, leaving many unimpressed with the American broadband goals established in the FCC’s National Broadband Plan.

City Telecom CEO William Yeung called out the current state of American broadband, noting many Americans are still stuck with megabit speeds in the single digits, while 100+ megabit access is widely available across most of Hong Kong from fiber optic networks.

Yeung thinks 100Mbps service will be considered slow by the time 2020 rolls around, noting an insatiable demand for enhanced broadband speeds.

Google’s Think Big With a Gig project underlines Yeung’s beliefs as hundreds of American communities clamor to be among those chosen for a demonstration project that will deliver up to 1Gbps speed to homes and businesses on an all-fiber network.

Yeung rejects the notion that wiring Hong Kong was a natural for super-fast fiber optic broadband just because of its dense population, reducing potential costs.

“I think it’s a matter of short term vs. long term thinking,” Yeung told Bloomberg News.

According to Yeung, American broadband providers are afraid constructing super-fast broadband lanes threaten to cannibalize their existing revenue streams, especially from cable television.  That’s because Americans could end up dropping their cable packages in favor of watching everything online.  Yeung also thinks Wall Street is preoccupied with short-term Return on Investment, making it difficult to upgrade to fiber service despite the enormous potential long term revenue, even in rural areas.

For Yeung, it’s all about marketing the benefits of fiber.  His company, City Telecom, is busily signing new subscribers despite the fact the island already enjoys near-universal broadband access.  Offering faster speeds and better service will drive customers to switch providers, Yeung believes.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Bloomberg News talked with City Telecom CEO William Yeung about fiber-optic broadband and the fact Hong Kong is well ahead of the United States on broadband speed and service.  (4 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

City Telecom’s HKBN service has a history of running bizarre advertising.  One recent example is included here, along with a short promotional video touting the company’s accomplishments in constructing an all-fiber network.  (4 minutes)

Share/Save

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.

Share/Save

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.

Share/Save

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.

Share/Save

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.

Share/Save

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.

Share/Save

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

Share/Save

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.

Click here to view the embedded video.

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

More video coverage below the jump.

Click here to view the embedded video.

KSEE-TV Fresno talks about that evening’s public hearing with Senator Florez and how customers feel about PG&E. (10/21/2009 2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

KMPH-TV Fresno has coverage from inside and outside of the hearing room.  (10/21/2009 – 3 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

KGET-TV in Bakersfield reports PG&E has had some other ‘accuracy problems,’ now handing out major refunds for overbilling customers. (10/21/2009 – 3 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

In southeast Bakersfield, one woman has repeatedly refused to allow PG&E to install a SmartMeter on her home, as KGET reports. (11/4/2009 – 2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Meanwhile, XETV-TV in Tijuana, which serves San Diego, reports that city’s utility wants to raise its rates on customers who use less power. (11/4/2009 – 2 minutes)

Share/Save

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.)

Click here to view the embedded video.

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:

Click here to view the embedded video.

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

Share/Save

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.

Share/Save

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.

Share/Save

AT&T’s Senior Executive Vice President of Legislative Affairs James Cicconi e-mail bombed AT&T employees Monday asking them to express their “deep concern” for Net Neutrality on the FCC’s Net Neutrality website’s comment section.  (Thanks to several Stop the Cap! readers, among them Dave, “Gaff”, “Bones”, “Prevent Caps” and James who sent news tips on this story. The delay in publication came from assembling a response you, as actual consumers, can fire back at the AT&T Propaganda Parade on the FCC website.)

More than 300,000 AT&T employees received the “suggestion” in their e-mail box, complete with ready-made talking points employees can use to parrot AT&T’s anti-Net Neutrality positions.  In a remarkably brave section, Cicconi suggests employees not use their company e-mail accounts when engaged in the “grassroots” push back, as if word of that maneuver would not promptly get leaked to the media.  (By Tuesday morning, it did.)  The FCC shouldn’t know the barrage of anti-consumer, anti-Net Neutrality comments came as a result of a PressureGram from AT&T Corporate.

“We encourage you, your family and friends to join the voices telling the FCC not to regulate the Internet,” Cicconi wrote in his letter.  “Those who seek to impose extreme regulations on the network are flooding the site to influence the FCC; it’s now time for you to voice your opinion.”

(Note: Most of those seeking to “impose extreme regulations” are actual consumers.)

The convenient “talking points” AT&T provided are identical to the comments found on any anti-consumer, telecom-sponsored astroturf group website.  That’s no surprise, considering most of those astroturf groups survive on the checks sent by those large telecommunications companies.

We debunk them for your convenience:

• America’s wireless consumers enjoy the broadest range of innovative services and devices, lowest prices, highest usage levels, and most choices in the world. Why disrupt a market that’s working so well?

That’s demonstrably false.  Consumers Union and other consumer groups independently found a high degree of concentration and obstacles to competition among providers of mobile data and Internet access services, which Net Neutrality rules would cover.  As Stop the Cap! has already reported, competition for wireless broadband is hardly a Battle Royale with virtually every carrier charging around the same amount for 5 gigabytes of maximum mobile web usage per month.  AT&T was charging a ridiculous $480 per gigabyte for those exceeding that limit, according to CU.  Americans pay an average of over $500 a year for wireless access, which hardly represents the lowest prices.  Consumers Union discovered Americans pay “much more than users in most other developed nations.”

Americans also endure restrictive phone plans that give exclusivity to popular handsets, limit certain web applications from wireless usage, and impose often stiff penalties for choosing to end a relationship with a wireless provider before the contract term has ended.

• There is fierce competition for wireless and broadband customers. Competition drives innovation and encourages companies to develop products, services and applications that consumers want. There’s been more innovation in this market than in any since the World Wide Web was introduced. The market is working for consumers. Don’t burden it with unnecessarily harmful regulations.

That’s brazenly false.  The wireless telephone industry has contracted in the last several years due to mergers and acquisitions and a determination by several independent resellers that profits were elusive reselling access to another company’s wireless network.  Alltel is now owned by Verizon Wireless.  Virgin Mobile, which took over Helio, will itself likely soon be owned by Sprint.  Amp’d Mobile, Disney Mobile and ESPN Mobile, among many other resellers, disappeared altogether.

Most rural Americans “enjoy” a monopoly broadband service provided, where available, by their local phone company providing slow speed DSL service.  Most medium sized cities are served by a duopoly — one cable and one phone company.  Innovation in broadband comes to some, such as those served by Verizon FiOS, and skipped for others, such as those suffering with Frontier, FairPoint, and other phone companies that believe standard DSL is “good enough.”  AT&T, among many other providers, now want to experiment with rationing the Internet with Internet Overcharging schemes designed to curb use of their broadband services.

• Network companies have to be able to manage their networks to ensure the most economical and efficient use of bandwidth, and provide affordable broadband services for all users. Network management is essential for consumers to enjoy the benefits of new quality-sensitive applications and services. The FCC rules should not stop the promise of life-changing, cost-saving services such as telemedicine that depend on a managed network.

That’s ludicrously false.  Managing networks, which sounds benign in theory, is often not in practice.  Several providers have recently taken a turn towards limiting access to those networks with usage rationing plans that limit consumers to a pre-determined amount of usage before overlimit fees or service termination kicks in.  AT&T is testing those schemes in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada this very day.  Stop the Cap! has repeatedly documented providers that admit their connectivity costs are dropping, right along with their investments in those networks to keep up with demand.  For some network companies, throwing hundreds of hours of online video to congest those networks seems to be an okay proposition, telemedicine or not.  Upgrade the networks that earn the American broadband industry billions in profits every year.

• The “net neutrality” rules as reported will jeopardize the very goals supported by the Obama administration that every American have access to high-speed Internet services no matter where they live or their economic circumstance. That goal can’t be met with rules that halt private investment in broadband infrastructure. And the jobs associated with that investment will be lost at a time when the country can least afford it.

That’s infamously false.  AT&T managed to eke out an existence after its merger with BellSouth when it had to live under a Net Neutral regime for two years.  As Tim Karr from Free Press notes, “AT&T is loath to mention that it made considerable network investment when it had to abide by Net Neutrality conditions, and then invested considerably less when it didn’t.”  Somehow, U-verse will survive a Net Neutral world.

Meanwhile, many other broadband providers are in no hurry to expand or build new networks unless their hands are forced by the other competitor in the market threatening to steal their customers away.  AT&T’s U-verse offering is a direct response to the cable television industry swiping their customers with “digital phone” and cable television bundles that include broadband.  Time Warner Cable earns most of its new broadband customers at the phone company’s expense when consumers tire of slow, unreliable DSL service.

For rural communities, a Net Neutral America won’t make much difference either way.  Without Net Neutrality protection, companies like Verizon continue to abandon more rural states, selling off operations to companies like FairPoint and Frontier Communications, which have uninspired broadband programs that bring slow DSL service to areas that will never be wired for Verizon fiber-optic FiOS.  Large phone companies like Verizon continue to layoff employees, especially in the traditional wireline telephone business.

If we wait for private companies to deliver broadband to every American, it will be a very long wait.  But when it does arrive, it would be nice if consumers could actually enjoy their broadband service without network throttles and Internet Overcharging schemes.

• The FCC shouldn’t burden an industry that is bringing jobs and investment to the country, but if it is going to regulate the Internet it should do so fairly. The goal of the FCC should be to maintain a level playing field by treating all competitors the same. Any new rules should apply equally to network providers, search engines and other information services providers.

That’s a laughably false premise.  When is the last time you bought broadband service from Yahoo!, Bing, or Google?  AT&T wants to compare their broadband apples with search engine oranges.  A level playing field would mean an end to the too-cute-by-half cable industry’s unofficial non-compete regime which makes sure no large cable operator intrudes on someone else’s territory.  It would mean an end to exclusive wireless handset provisions and gotcha contract terms designed to hold customers hostage to their wireless provider.  It would guarantee that if a municipality is fed up with the broadband backwater status afforded it by providers convinced what they deliver is “good enough,” that municipality can construct their own advanced broadband network and do the job private providers won’t.

Broadband regulated in the providers’ best interests have resulted in middle-of-the-pack broadband service for Americans, not the world class networks America can use to leverage a leadership role in the digital economy of the future.  The FCC should regulate the Internet to provide free, open access to innovative products and services that will really create new jobs for Americans.  They should definitely not continue a protectionism regime already in place that forces Americans to choose near-identical wireless service plans at high prices, and broadband service from one or two providers with dreams of Internet Overcharging schemes and speed throttles.

Share/Save

The reported deal between Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator and NBC-Universal, part owner of Hulu, could have serious consequences for the Internet’s most popular destination for online television shows and movies.

In just a year, Hulu has enjoyed a quadrupling of visits well into the millions, streaming dozens of network television series, specials, and movies, all supported by commercial advertising.  Devised to help combat online video piracy and earn additional advertising revenue from web watchers, Hulu partners NBC, Fox and Walt Disney Co., have been successful at drawing scores of Americans to the video website.  Program distributors have also been pleased, earning money from shows like Lou Grant that haven’t been on network television in decades.  But after the economic crash of 2008, the venture has proven costly for the partnership, challenged by an advertising marketplace on life support and outright hostility by broadband providers, cable operators, and Wall Street investors, upset that the service is giving it all away for free.

Among the loudest to complain is Comcast, which is now angling to acquire NBC, and its 30% ownership stake in Hulu.

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts has repeatedly complained about the implications of giving away online video, which for some have begun to replace cable television subscriptions.

“If I am any one of these programmers, not just ESPN but the Food Network and I have a business in that 50 percent, 60 percent, 70 percent of my business comes from subscriptions, I want to think long and hard before I just put that content out there for free and not think through what it is going to mean to my business,” Roberts said at an investors conference in May.

Roberts view was shared by the CEO of the nation’s second largest cable operator, Glenn Britt of Time Warner Cable.

“If you give it away for free, you’re going to forego that subscription revenue,” Britt said. “And if you actually think the ad revenue can make up for that, then God bless you and go on your way. But I don’t think that’s the case, and (networks) don’t really think that’s the case either.”

The difference between Comcast and Time Warner Cable is that the former could gain part ownership in the largest service now giving it all away for free, and that has major implications for Hulu’s future.

“Would Comcast put an end to the Hulu model of using the Web to distribute free TV content?” asked Michael Nathanson, senior media analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. “Will Comcast continue to support Hulu?”

The Los Angeles Times reports there is already a precedent for Hulu limiting content for online viewers in response to complaints:

Hulu already has limited users’ access to certain cable programs, including FX’s “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” in response to an outcry from the TV producers and cable companies that object to paying TV programmers hundreds of millions of dollars each year for shows that are offered free online.

“Arguably, their ability to shape online content distribution, and to recast windows for video on demand, would be an important attribute of any deal,” wrote Craig Moffett, a cable industry analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein.

Comcast’s interest in NBC Universal would dramatically expand its entertainment portfolio with such attractive cable channels as USA Network, MSNBC and CNBC as well as the Universal Pictures movie studio. The proposed Comcast-NBC Universal venture also would give the cable operator a greater role in deciding how and when TV shows and movies are distributed online and at what price to consumers.

Comcast’s influence would primarily be felt in cable network programming streamed online, as Comcast has a vested interest from the millions it currently pays those programmers to carry their networks on Comcast cable systems nationwide.  Comcast could advocate Hulu become a partner in the TV Everywhere cartel, providing video content only to “authenticated” pay television subscribers, or it could limit the number of episodes available for free, or when those episodes appear on the service.

Soleil Securities media analyst Laura Martin thinks an even more likely possibility would be charging a fee for some of its more popular content.  Martin points to Hulu’s own financial problems, a consequence of the crash in the advertising market.  Soleil estimates that the three partners subsidize $33 million of the losses at Hulu even after earning $123 million this year from advertising.  Even worse, Martin says, is the cannibalizing of the networks’ own advertising earnings from broadcast runs of those shows now available online.  She told the Times that for every viewer who migrates to the Internet, the companies forfeit $920 a year in ad revenue.

But not everyone believes the Comcast-NBC deal is such a great idea.

Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes today told an industry conference in Manhattan that large media mergers have had a lousy track record.  Still, he said the merger would probably benefit the cable industry as a whole, because broadcast networks content with giving away content for free online will now be a part of the very industry hurt by that formula and will be more friendly towards arguments to stop it.

“We love to see our competitors taking risks,” Bewkes said.

Click here to view the embedded video.

CNBC’s Julia Boorstin talked with Hulu CEO Jason Kilar in September about the desire for the company to partner with the cable industry’s TV Everywhere project.

Share/Save

PSP Go

The arrival of Sony’s update to the PlayStation Portable, the PSP Go, gives potential buyers more to ponder than its $250 price tag and the fact it excludes a UMD drive, which means many consumers will now download their games from the PlayStation Store.

In areas where broadband service is loaded down with Internet Overcharging schemes like usage allowances and overlimit fees, the first question for potential PSP Go owners is, “how big are these games?”

They are right to be concerned… and confused.  There has been considerable debate over the size of the average PSP Go game.  Some retailers have been talking about Go games running 50-100 megabytes.

But Al De Leon, PR Manager for Sony Computer Entertainment America, has stated the average size of a PSP Go downloadable game will be between 600-800 megabytes and no upper limit has yet been announced.  A few consumers who purchased the device discovered “no upper limit” is the operative phrase.  They found some examples among PSP titles on offer:

• Gran Turismo is 937 megabytes
• God of War: Chains of Olympus is 1.29 gigabytes
• Resistance: Retribution is 1.4 gigabytes

Of course, some games will be much smaller, especially those designed for playing on the Go.

Sony’s experiments with online game distribution could foretell a future where game titles are increasingly distributed online to consumers, which reduces manufacturing costs and speeds delivery to eager buyers.  But that future may be hampered if broadband providers implement usage allowances, particularly at the lower limits some companies have experimented with.  Frontier’s infamous 5 gigabyte, unenforced limit in their Acceptable Use Policy is a good example.

Share/Save

Cable ONE, owned by the Net Neutrality-bashing Washington Post, has turned the art of broadband service into a science of confusion for its customers.

In addition to introducing a forthcoming new, faster tier of service, offering speeds at 12Mbps downstream and 1.5Mbps upstream, Cable ONE has been tinkering with their convoluted usage capping system, which combines a daily usage allowance with throttled speeds and exempt periods during traditionally lower usage hours.

See if you can understand their new usage limit chart, and even if you can, ask yourself if your parents will pick up what they are putting down:

(Click to enlarge)

Karl Bode at Broadband Reports thinks “Standard Speed” refers to Cable ONE’s throttle — reducing effective speeds by half, assuming you exceed your “threshold.”  The limits shown are reset daily.  Exceeding that limit many times during a month can technically get your service suspended, but we’ve not heard of anyone who either hasn’t been able to talk their way out of it with company officials or who haven’t been bothered by local system managers who are probably just as confounded by this crazy cap scheme as we are.

Cable ONE customers like the new speed offering, if and when it arrives in their respective communities, but hate the silly usage allowances and speed throttles that accompany them.  As Stop the Cap! has always said, consumers are beating the doors down waiting to throw more dollars at broadband providers who offer them the higher speed service they desire.

Instead, some providers would rather create Internet Overcharging schemes to reduce demand and expenses, and profit the proceeds.  If given a competitive choice, consumers will leave a cap-happy provider for someone else who actually listens to customers.  Unfortunately, for too many Americans, the key words are “if given a competitive choice.”

A customer in Boise notes, “I can’t even watch a full movie from Netflix without getting my speed cut in half.  I started the movie at 12pm and by 1pm my speed was cut in half.  When I called Cable ONE and asked about my bandwidth, they wouldn’t even tell me if I crossed the threshold limit.  They kept dancing around my question with ‘it may have been reduced.’  Wake up Cable ONE!”

Many Cable ONE customers are located in smaller cities and communities that currently have just one other option – DSL service from the local phone company.  For many residents, that tops out at 1.5Mbps or 3Mbps downstream.  But for some, it’s better than being usage capped by cable.

Perhaps Cable ONE would do good to watch their own advertisements, which promise: “It’s the way we always listen, to every word you say; loud and clear is how we hear, there’s just no other way.”

Stop the Cap! calls on Cable ONE to discard confusing, impenetrable usage allowances that few customers can find on their website and even fewer actually understand.  Investing in your network with the proceeds of higher speed premium service tiers and making upgrades to DOCSIS 3 can provide additional bandwidth and profit opportunities while customers can sit back, “enjoy the fun with Cable ONE,” and relax with the broadband service they pay good money to receive.  Cable ONE already provides customers with a way to self-regulate their usage, by selecting a speed tier that is comfortable for them and their anticipated Internet needs.

Share/Save

From the Department of Duh:

The plight of mobile providers to strike profit riches in mobile broadband has been stymied by the fact customers actually want to use the service they pay for each month.

Even worse, customers are using dongles to give their laptops and netbooks wireless connectivity, which hurts an industry accustomed to charging top dollar for data plans used sparingly on cumbersome mobile phones.

“Dongles really are reaching a critical mass,” a Vodafone spokesperson told BBC News.

French operator SFR claims laptops equipped with a dongle use 450 times more bandwidth than a classic mobile phone.

So-called “smartphones,” which often include a built-in or on-screen keyboards, are using lots of data, too.

The result has been near-universal adoption of usage caps in European mobile broadband, which UK operator O2 admitted earlier this year were “used as a deterrent and to make sure that others using the network had a good experience.”

Many providers have customers too afraid to exceed those caps, often set at 1-5GB per month.  The punitive overlimit fee can easily add tens of Euros to mobile broadband bills.  Many customers stay well clear of the cap to avoid the prospect of receiving a shocking bill.

Providers fear their mobile networks may soon be at capacity.  That would logically lead many to presume fast and furious investments in their networks to upgrade capacity, but that is exactly the opposite view some providers have.

“You can easily lose money on mobile broadband if you do it in the wrong way,” warns Bjorn Amundsen, director of mobile network coverage at Telenor in Norway.

“We have had to be careful not to invest too much, because the only thing that would happen if we did would be to increase data traffic without an increase in our profits,” said Amundsen.

Phil Sayer, principal analyst at Forrester Research told the BBC, “the user community as a whole is tired of hearing special pleading from the mobile operators.”

“Remember, these guys have been making money hand over fist from data roaming charges,” Sayer said.

Share/Save

"PPC-1" - Pipe Network's new fiber link opens this week

Ongoing connectivity issues and lack of competition continue to leave Australians with expensive, slow, and usage-limited broadband service.

This week, Pipe Networks will make a small dent in improving international connectivity when it activates its new PPC-1 fiber link between Sydney and the U.S. territory of Guam in the Pacific. The project, first envisioned in December 2006, took nearly three years to complete at a cost of more than $175 million U.S. dollars, and has a design capacity of 1.92Tb/s run over two fiber pairs.

Telecommunications analyst Paul Budde said Pipe Networks, along with others “would help to reduce this problem and will therefore provide ISPs with better prices,” which was supposed to result in a lifting of Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps.

Not so fast.

Broadband providers in Australia have taken notice of Pipe Networks’ new pipeline, but many have not lowered prices or removed usage caps.  The lack of competition has kept a price war from taking place.  Ovum senior telecommunications analyst David Kennedy told Australian IT that without a price incentive, a lot of customers, particularly those served by Optus and Telstra, are unlikely to switch providers.

ADSL2+ Speeds drop dramatically the further away you live from the phone company's switching office

One DSL provider in Australia, Internode, has made some changes to its service offerings in response to the new fiber link.  The Adelaide-based company has simplified some of its service plans, cut the price of small office/home office pricing by about $9 per month, and increased the paltry usage cap on its Easy Broadband plan from 30GB per month to 50GB per month.  Internode’s Easy Broadband charges $44 a month for DSL service at 1.5Mbps/256kbps,  or in areas upgraded to ADSL2+ service, up to 24Mbps/1Mbps.  Actual speed on the latter service is highly dependent on how far away you live from the telephone company local switching office.

Internode chief executive Pat Tapper doesn’t think PPC-1 will make a huge difference for his company.

Internode sells "data blocks" for consumers intending to exceed their allowance.

“In the whole scheme of things the PPC-1 circuit doesn’t represent a huge spend in terms of what it costs to run the network. It will change a little bit in terms of our overall cost but only a very small amount,” he said.

“What it does give us is the ability to deliver more capacity to customers in downloads.”

That means a larger usage cap, but not cheaper pricing.

Internode customers that exceed the cap can purchase additional usage blocks, at pricing starting at $2.20 per gigabyte.

Share/Save

Be Sure to Read Part One: Astroturf Overload — Broadband for America = One Giant Industry Front Group for an important introduction to what this super-sized industry front group is all about.

Members of Broadband for America

Red: A company or group actively engaging in anti-consumer lobbying, opposes Net Neutrality, supports Internet Overcharging, belongs to an astroturf group, or is an astroturf group itself.
Blue: An equipment supplier whose bread is buttered by the telecommunications industry, but doesn’t go out of their way to actively engage in anti-consumer activities.
Purple: A telecommunications company providing broadband service.
Black: A group or organization about which there is insufficient evidence to connect them to a specific astroturfer, lobbying firm, telecommunications provider, or other aligned special interest.  That doesn’t mean there aren’t ties yet to be uncovered.  Considering the overwhelming majority of BfA members have a vested interest towards the broadband industry, you can draw your own conclusions.

Actiontec Electronics, Inc. — Actiontec is an equipment provider selling high speed Internet modems and routers. Their customers include Verizon, Qwest, TDS, MTS and hundreds of smaller carriers throughout North America. More importantly, it is a member of the notorious anti-regulatory, anti-Net Neutrality “Hands Off the Internet” group run for and by the telecommunications industry. Actiontec is also a member of TV4Us, a group Common Cause called the very definition of Astroturf. It advocates for franchising reform (taking away local government oversight) and hates Net Neutrality. Actiontec took even more action by signing a letter by Netcompetition opposing Net Neutrality.

ADC Telecommunications, Inc. — ADC sells broadband network infrastructure products and services that enable the profitable delivery of high-speed Internet, video, data, and voice services to residential, business and mobile subscribers. Among their clients: AT&T, British Telecom, Comcast, Sprint Nextel, Qwest, T-Mobile, and Verizon. They are also listed as a member of “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition opposing Net Neutrality.

Advanced Digital Broadcast — ADB provides digital set-top boxes for including cable, IPTV, satellite and terrestrial providers.

Alloptic — Sells central office and customer premise equipment to deploy Fiber-to-the-Business and Fiber-to-the-Home.

American Agri-Women — A national coalition of farm, ranch, and agri-business organizations, AAW’s involvement in telecommunications issues is not prominent on their website. The group’s 2009 position statement has one sentence about telecommunications issues: “AAW supports a full range of ownership of telecommunications infrastructure including entrepreneurs, large corporations, municipalities, and other units of local government.”

American Association of People with Disabilities — AAPD gets major donations from both Verizon and the Verizon Foundation, and put a Verizon VP, Richard T. Ellis – on its board (2005). It participated in multiple Verizon-based campaigns, including part of a group put together by Issue Dynamics, a Washington DC public relations firm, that jointly signed an ex parte letter to the FCC, explaining why the Bell companies should not have to open their fiber-optic networks to competition. (Source: Harvard Nieman)

American Council on Renewable Energy — What do C. Boyden Gray, big industry lobbyist and ex-aide to former President George Herbert Walker Bush, and Amory Lovins, alternative energy guru, agree on? The need for a big-bucks trade association that can “bring renewable energy into the mainstream of America’s economy and lifestyle” and otherwise spread the gospel about solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass, biofuels, waste energy and hydrogen energy systems. (Source: Sourcewatch) Their position on telecommunications and broadband issues is not clear from their website.

Americans for Technology Leadership — Americans for Technology Leadership was founded by Jonathan Zuck in 1999 as a “grassroots” organization for concerned consumers who want less regulation in the technology sector.  It also campaigns on general tech issues such as spam.  It has been frequently described as a Microsoft front group.  ATL’s domain name, techleadership.org, is registered to the Association for Competitive Technology.  The site is hosted by Thomas E. Stock and Thomas J. Synhorst’s LLC, TSE Enterprises.  Synhorst is a founding member of the DCI Group, a Washington DC-based strategic consulting and lobbying firm which has counted Microsoft as a prime client for a number of years. (Source: Sourcewatch)

ARRIS — ARRIS provides broadband technology for the cable industry. ARRIS products help cable operators provide cable TV and telephony, high-speed Internet and data access. The ARRIS product line includes cable modem and wireless broadband products, infrastructure for digital video and IPTV, and a Fixed Mobile solution.

AT&T — Broadband provider

BendBroadband — Broadband provider

BeSafe — BeSafe Technologies uses broadband to provide real time information to emergency first responders, including contact information, aerial photos, video feeds and building plans. It’s interested in advocating emergency preparedness issues that leverage broadband infrastructure as part of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan.

BigBand Networks, Inc. — BigBand Networks provides infrastructure and support for moving, managing, and monetizing video.

BTECH Inc. — A backup battery provider which oddly finds the need to involve itself in a variety of astroturf groups.  In addition to signing a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality, BTECH also belongs to “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us.

Cablevision Systems Corporation — Broadband provider

CBM of America, Inc. — A network solutions provider for IP networks, CBM is also a member of astroturf group “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

CenturyLink — Broadband provider

Charles Industries, Ltd. — Provides cable wiring protection and products that help expand DSL service to hard to reach areas. What wasn’t hard to find was their membership in the astroturf group TV4Us.  They also signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Child Safety Task Force — Part of the Robert K. Johnson astroturf machine, including Consumers for Cable Competitive Choice and Consumers Voice. Only involvement in telecommunications comes from “child safety on the Internet” issue.

Cisco — An equipment manufacturer that has ties to several astroturf and public policy groups, including Arts+Labs and is a major advocate of the alarmist “The Internet is full/exaflood/zettabyte era” rhetoric providers use to justify Internet Overcharging schemes, while Cisco’s self-interest is served by selling the equipment to manage the ‘data tsunami.’  They also signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

CoAdna Photonics, Inc. — Sells a variety of products to maintain optical networks, and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Comcast — Broadband provider

CommScope, Inc. — Designs and produces cables for cable broadband and other providers.

Condux International, Inc. — Condux is a manufacturer of aerial and underground cable installation equipment and tools. Also belongs to TV4Us and “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Consumers First — A group that receives corporate contributions from both AT&T and Verizon, Consumers First often turns up belonging to other astroturf groups, including Robert K. Johnson’s now-defunct Consumers for Cable Choice.

Corning Incorporated — A manufacturer of fiber optic cable, among other things. Verizon is a very important customer.  Corning helped launch the Fiber to the Home Council, which pals around with astroturfers and doesn’t like Net Neutrality. Corning keeps more distance between itself and direct anti-consumer astroturf campaigns, but still signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Cox Communications — Broadband provider

CTIA The Wireless Association — The trade association for the wireless industry, includes AT&T and Verizon.

DC-Primary Care Association — A group advocating for health care reform, telemedicine, and affordable care in the District of Columbia. Its primary interest in broadband may be to leverage stimulus money for health-care related broadband applications.

Dominican American National Roundtable — A group that claims to represent the interests of Dominican-Americans, they spend a lot of time involving themselves in telecommunications issues like mergers involving Verizon. That could be because the group receives substantial support from both AT&T and Verizon Wireless. On behalf of Verizon in 2008, DANA wrote the Federal Communications Commission with a dubious argument in favor of the Verizon Wireless-Alltel merger, claiming “Verizon Wireless also has the scale and scope to invest in network facilities in [...] areas in which there is a dense Dominican population.” They fell all over themselves praising Verizon: “Verizon Wireless is well known for having one of the largest and most reliable national wireless networks in the country, so Alltel’s customers will benefit from its size, reach and quality [and] customers will benefit from ever-greater choices – in plans and phones – [and] one of the most advanced broadband networks.”

Enhanced Telecommunications Inc. — Enhanced Telecommunications, Inc. was founded in 1992 to provide software for the converging broadband technologies of television, telephone and internet communications. They are also are believers in converging astroturf campaigns, as a member of “Hands Off the Internet” and a co-signer of a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Fiber to the Home Council — An industry trade group that promotes fiber optics broadband. The FTTH Council was established in July 2001 by Alcatel-Lucent, Corning Incorporated and Optical Solutions. If an issue could lead to more fiber optics deployment, FTTH Council is often involved. Since consumers are often pro-fiber, there are times they do share a common interest in expanding fiber optic broadband. But the Council hates Net Neutrality. Full Frontal Scrutiny also exposed some credibility problems with the Council: “The FTTH Council is comprised of “approximately 800 company member delegates,” most of which represent businesses that provide equipment and/or services related to fiber optic systems. Nonprofit institutions can apply to join the FTTH Council, but their membership must be approved by the Board of Directors. Moreover, nonprofits allowed to join the FTTH Council can not serve on the Board or vote on Council issues.” The group also promotes the “exaflood – Internet is going to get overloaded” scare-mongering, unsurprising since they believe fiber deployment will fix it.

FiberControl — Designs and manufactures fiber based polarization stabilizers, polarization controllers and polarization-state scramblers for fiber optic networks. They will polarize our readers against them as a member of the “Hands Off the Internet” astroturf group and their signature on a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Global Crossing — A telecommunications service provider.  As a consumer who lived under Global Crossing’s ownership of Frontier Communications, I hope BfA made sure the check cleared before sending them membership stickers.

Hispanic Leadership Fund — A conservative Hispanic political group that generally opposes regulation and government involvement in private business. Mario Lopez, group president, spent most of his summer at tea party rallies criticizing Obama Administration policies. Insufficient information available to know where the money comes from, but this group opposes regulation generally, so Net Neutrality is definitely a thumbs-down with them.

Independent Technologies Inc. — Independent Technologies is a communications technology research and development company. They also independently decided to join forces with both “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us astroturfers and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance (ITTA) — An industry trade group of independent mid-size telephone companies. Their members, which usually provide DSL broadband service, include CenturyLink, Comporium Communications, Consolidated Communications, FairPoint Communications, Frontier Communications, Iowa Telecom, Qwest Communications, TDS Telecom, and Windstream Communications. The group actively opposes Net Neutrality and wants a hands-off policy on telecommunications regulations.

International Association for K-12 Online — iNACOL, The International Association for K-12 Online Learning, is a non-profit organization that facilitates collaboration, advocacy, and research to enhance quality K-12 online teaching and learning.

Intertribal Agriculture Council — IAC was founded in 1987 to pursue and promote the conservation, development and use of Native American agricultural resources for the betterment of Native Americans. Oddly, one of the priorities for IAC in 2008 was being a full-throated supporter of the Sirius-XM Radio merger. It also joined forces with the Alliance for Aviation Across America (along with other BfA members including the National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry and the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association) to oppose a proposal to shift some of airline carriers’ federal tax burden to small-jet operators.

Itaas Inc. — Founded in 1999, itaas is a privately held, Atlanta-based company with experience in digital cable television technology.

"This may be an attempt to trick you." -- The error message received when visiting the apparently defunct jewishenergyproject.org website

Jewish Energy Project — Appears to be defunct or inoperative. Website jewishenergyproject.org launches a prompt to log onto group founder Brian H. Davis’ Gmail account! Davis is an environmental lawyer whose firm uses a “team approach [to] support “harmonizing of business and environment.”

Latinos in Information Science & Technology Association — LISTA claims it is a national organization of Latino professionals and role models from the information science, telecommunications, and technology industry. “By working together and showcasing the talented Latinos in these sectors, the community as a whole could reach higher goals in order to conquer the digital divide. Today, LISTA remains committed to excellence and providing a wide spectrum of resources to members, corporate sponsors, businesses, educational institutions and the community.” Somehow, it accomplishes that by advocating the merger of Sirius and XM Radio and attacking Google’s “search monopoly.” LISTA has a corporate sponsorship program that, among other things, “link LISTA strategic initiatives to the objectives of the corporation.” Now we’re getting somewhere. LISTA’s membership in BfA may strategically link the objectives of these sponsors: AT&T, National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Microsoft, Comcast, Verizon, and RCN Communications.

Livestock Marketing Association — The Livestock Marketing Association is committed to the support and protection of the local livestock auction markets.  Their website says, “auctions are a vital part of the livestock industry, serving producers and assuring a fair, competitive price through the auction method of selling.” The best way to assure that is to join Broadband for America?  Perhaps the livestock have Facebook pages.

LookBothWays – From their website: “LOOKBOTHWAYS, Inc., founded by internationally recognized online safety expert Linda Criddle, provides free consumer education in online safety through their Web site, ilookbothways.com. We are currently building K-12 online safety curriculum which will be available to everybody at no charge, and teach a college course in Internet Safety for Educators through two US universities. LOOKBOTHWAYS also has a software division developing technology solutions for online safety. In addition we consult and train companies, governments, and law enforcement agencies worldwide and are available for speaking engagements on a wide variety of safety topics. Criddle spent 13 years at Microsoft where she was a pioneer in online safety.”   Criddle also heads the “Safe Internet Alliance” which is absolutely infested with astroturf groups and providers, many of them also AfB members: AT&T, US Internet Industry Association, National Black Chamber of Commerce, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, RetireSafe, Stop Child Predators, Verizon, MANA (A National Latina Organization), and Consumers First. Her organization’s name is lent out to Saferdates, which charges a fee to do background and fingerprint checks on you to “verify” your identity to people who might want to date you.  Perhaps Criddle should perform a background check on BfA to know who she’s hanging around with.

MANA (A National Latina Organization) — Formerly the Mexican American National Association, MANA today claims to empower Latina women through leadership development, community service, and advocacy. They are also empowered by support from AT&T and Verizon. MANA’s National Corporate Partnership Council will put your company logo on their home page for a $50,000 contribution (AT&T is the first logo shown). MANA’s Advisory Council has Emilio Gonzalez, Verizon’s director of public policy and strategic alliances on it. Gonzalez also serves on the boards of two other BfA members:  the United States Distance Learning Association and the US Mexico Chamber of Commerce.  Even more impressive, from as astroturfing perspective, is their Vice-Chair, Bridget Gonzales, who used to be “Assistant Vice President for Issue Dynamics, Inc., a public affairs firm in Washington, DC, where she led the firm’s Strategic Alliances Group. “Ms. Gonzales was instrumental in planning and executing public affairs and consumer education campaigns for Fortune 500 clients such as Verizon Communications, BellSouth, SBC Communications, Corning, Novartis, and others. This included preparation of press releases, op-eds, speeches and consumer education materials as well as coordination of issue briefings, congressional advocacy activities, workshops and media relations. Critical to her success was the effective working relationships she established with high profile national organizations such as League of United Latin American Citizens, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, NAACP, National Grange, Gray Panthers and others.”

Motorola — An equipment manufacturer, among its biggest customers are AT&T, T Mobile, and Verizon.  They signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

MRV Communications, Inc. — MRV Communications is a supplier of communications equipment and services to service providers. “Today’s telecommunication networks are evolving to support growing network traffic due to the demand for high-bandwidth applications such as IPTV, streaming video, peer-to-peer networking, and content-rich websites. Service providers are attempting to differentiate their offerings from their competitors and strive to provide many new capabilities. The growth in these applications is driving the need for additional bandwidth capacity in the Internet infrastructure.” They don’t differentiate themselves much in their membership in the usual astroturf groups “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us. They also co-signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

National Association of Manufacturers — This trade association, which counts AT&T and Verizon among its members has this policy towards telecommunications: “Fostering an environment where manufacturers and consumers alike can obtain the services and content they want, when they want it and regardless of medium, is of primary concern. To achieve this goal, policymakers should remove barriers to entry that prevent broadband providers from offering high-speed information services to homes and businesses, balance the need for regulations against the potential to dampen private industry’s incentive to invest in broadband technology, encourage federal and state regulators to monitor the rollout of broadband services, and adopt a federal framework and to the extent necessary, lightly regulate only to ensure fair, technology-neutral competition for all providers.” They are members of both “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us.

National Association of Black Telecommunications Professionals — Appears defunct. The last time the nabtp.org website was updated and captured by Archive.org was on May 13, 2008. Their telephone number has been disconnected. Among their last features was a promotion for a speech by Larry Irving, who himself works for an astroturf group – the Internet Innovation Alliance. Some history on this group and others like it, was written by the National Community NETwork of AT&T.

National Black Chamber of Commerce — This group’s stated purpose: “To economically empower and sustain African American communities through entrepreneurship and capitalistic activity within the United States and via interaction with the Black Diaspora.” Their website hides their membership list, stating: “The National Black Chamber of Commerce does not distribute information about our members to protect their privacy.” Uh huh. We can take a wild guess however, based on their extended reach into the astroturf diaspora with memberships in both “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us. Back in December 2007 before the corporate sponsors were removed from the website for ‘their privacy,’ the group noted it had AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon among its members. Here they were towing the telecom industry line in a press release back in May 2007.

National Cable & Telecommunications Association — Everyone’s favorite super-sized trade association and lobbyist for big cable.

National Caucus and Center on Black Aged — “Throughout its 39 years history, the National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc. (NCBA) has worked to eliminate obstacles to fairness and equal access for one of the most underserved and vulnerable groups in our society – low-income black and minority senior citizens. NCBA’s programs have focused on three of the most critical needs: housing, employment and health promotion/disease prevention.” Actually, four needs — the fourth suddenly being broadband. This group has several telecommunications industry connections, as explored in part one of this report.

National Disease Cluster Alliance — A real mystery why this group belongs to BfA. This group is dedicated to identifying and responding to emerging disease cluster/anomalies. Founding member Floyd Sands passed away in May after a lengthy battle with cancer. In August, the group advertised for a new executive director and is engaged in fundraising. The stated purpose of the organization is noble, but their sudden interest in broadband issues as part of an astroturf effort is concerning.

National Grange — “The National Grange is the nation’s oldest national agricultural organization, with grassroots units established in 3,600 local communities in 37 states. Its 300,000 members provide service to agriculture and rural areas on a wide variety of issues, including economic development, education, family endeavors, and legislation designed to assure a strong and viable Rural America.” The organization claims to be particularly interested in rural telecommunications issues.  Coincidentally, it often finds itself getting involved in telecommunications issues that directly impact or involve Verizon. That’s ironic, considering Verizon is abandoning many rural communities altogether and selling them off to Frontier Communications. Over the years, the National Grange has thrown its view in on to Verizon vs. the RIAA, a request for Congress to support industry friendly legislation, a merger between Verizon and NorthPoint Communications, and universal service fund issues that brought them into a coalition with … the corn growers LawMedia Group loves to work with: The Keep USF Fair Coalition was formed in April 2004. Current members include Alliance for Public Technology, Alliance For Retired Americans, American Association Of People With Disabilities, American Corn Growers Association, American Council of the Blind, California Alliance of Retired Americans, Consumer Action, Deafness Research Foundation, Gray Panthers, Latino Issues Forum, League Of United Latin American Citizens, Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition, National Association Of The Deaf, National Consumers League, National Grange, National Hispanic Council on Aging, National Native American Chamber of Commerce, The Seniors Coalition, Utility Consumer Action Network, Virginia Citizen’s Consumer Council and World Institute On Disability. DSL Prime helps define the friendly circle.

National Puerto Rican Coalition, Inc. — NPRC’s mission is to systematically strengthen and enhance the social, political, and economic well-being of Puerto Ricans throughout the United States and in Puerto Rico with a special focus on the most vulnerable. AT&T is a major sponsor of the group. The organization signed a letter in 2006 concerning itself with, of all things, cable television set-top box integration. It took the vulnerable industry position. It supported the Sprint Nextel merger in 2005 with another letter.

NDS Limited — NDS Group Ltd is a private company owned by the Permira Funds and News Corporation. It creates technologies that allow pay-TV operators to generate revenues by securely delivering digital content to TVs, set-top boxes (STBs), digital video recorders (DVRs), PCs, portable media players (PMPs), removable media, and other mobile devices.

Net Literacy — This company’s mission “is to increase computer access by creating public computer labs, teach computer and Internet skills, and educate youth and parents about Internet safety.” “Senior Coalition Partners” include Verizon, Bright House Networks, Comcast, and the US Internet Industry Association.  Net Literacy co-released a report with the USIIA advocating AT&T and other provider views about broadband adoption, including government investment in broadband, and potentially supporting industry-sponsored Internet education and child safety efforts.

NSG America, Inc. — “As creator of the SELFOC Lens, Nippon Sheet Glass (NSG) manufactures and distributes more gradient-index lenses than anyone else in the world. Developed over 25 years ago, the SELFOC Lens has revolutionized the industries of fiber optic communications.” They signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality, and are also members of “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us.

Occam Networks, Inc — Occam Networks develops and markets the BLC 6000 multi-service access platform (MSAP), an Ethernet and IP-based loop carrier platform that enables our customers to profitably deliver a variety of traditional and packet voice, broadband and IP services from a single, converged all-packet access network.

OFS Fitel, LLC — OFS manufactures and markets fusion splicers, optical fiber, optical cable, fiber to the home (FTTX), connectivity, optical components, and specialty photonics products and optical components. They are also members of “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

On Trac, Incorporated — On Trac, Inc. is a telecommunications subcontractor that specializes in fiber to the home installations. Municipalities sometimes contract with them to do installations. On Trac is a member of “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

PECO II, Inc. — PECO II designs and manufactures DC power systems and provides engineering and support assistance. They also support and assist “Hands Off the Internet” as a member and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

People & Technology — Insufficient information to identify which group or company this represents.

Preformed Line Products, Inc. — Preformed Line Products (PLP) is a worldwide designer, manufacturer and supplier of cable anchoring and control hardware and systems, fiber optic and copper splice closures, and high-speed cross-connect devices.  They signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Prysmian Communications Cables and Systems USA, LLC — A player in the industry of high-technology cables and systems for energy and telecommunications. They are members of both “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us and also signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Quanta Services, Inc — Quanta Services is a provider of specialized contracting services, delivering end-to-end network solutions for the electric power, telecommunications, broadband cable and gas pipeline industries.  They signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Qwest — Broadband provider

RetireSafe — “RetireSafe is a grassroots advocacy and educational organization dedicated to preserving the options and protecting the benefits of America’s seniors. RetireSafe believes in a government that keeps its promises, protects our nation, and maintains the safety of its citizens. We believe in free markets, lower taxes, limited regulations, and the virtues of personal freedom and personal responsibility that provides true retirement security for all.” The American Prospect called the group “strange” because it doesn’t identify up front who runs it or pays the bills: “Many of these other groups exist as little more than letterheads and Web sites.”  There are suspicions RetireSafe is run by DCI Group, a Washington DC lobbying firm, on behalf of one of its corporate clients. Oddly, RetireSafe has usually been the domain of big pharmaceutical companies. What they are doing on Americans for Broadband’s member list is a mystery. DCI’s other clients have included AT&T and Microsoft, although there is no certain evidence who is behind the new interest in broadband.

Seachange International — SeaChange International is a provider of software applications, services and integrated solutions for the management and monetization of Video on Demand (VOD), digital advertising, and content acquisition.

Sheyenne Dakota, Inc. — Custom Cable Harness Manufacturing. They also signed a letter by Netcompetition opposing Net Neutrality.

Silver Star Communications — Broadband provider

Sjoberg’s, Inc — Broadband provider

Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council — The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) works to educate elected officials, policy makers, business leaders and the public to advance initiatives that enhance the environment for entrepreneurship, business start-up and growth. Member of TV4Us, which TV Technology described: “The roster of Coalition members includes The National Taxpayers Union, the Latino Coalition, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, the Women’s Presidents Organization, the Construction Industry Foundation, the Citizenship Foundation–and, oh yes, a dozen telecom manufacturers, the National Association of Manufacturers and AT&T. You can probably guess correctly whose money actually paid for the coalition’s ads.”

SNC Manufacturing Company, Inc. — SNC is a manufacturer and worldwide marketer of transformers, coils, high frequency magnetics and value-added assemblies.  They are a TV4Us member, and although their logo has changed, it appears they also signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Stop Child Predators — If your cat was a member of the Democratic Party, it would hiss the moment the people behind this group entered the room. Cary Katz, Chairman and President – Founder/CEO College Loan Corporation is a major Republican donor. Board member Viet Dinh was on the Board of Directors of Murdoch’s News Corporation, although he’s better known for his key role in producing the USA Patriot Act. One blogger investigating the group complained: “The Stop Child Predators Partnership doesn’t actually seem to do anything.” The group’s focus seems to be on developing stronger legislation for child predator crime prosecutions and sentencing, with suggested legislation for online safety as well. Insufficient information to tell if there is any telecommunications industry money in the group.

Sumitomo Electric Lightwave — A manufacturer of optical fiber and optical cable, cable assemblies, fiber management systems, etc. Member of “Hands Off the Internet,” they also signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Sunrise Telecom Inc — Sunrise develops test and measurement solutions for telecom, cable, and wireless networks that ensure network performance, speed deployment, and reduce the cost of network operations. Sunrise is a member of “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

SureWest Communications — Broadband provider

Suttle Apparatus Corporation — Suttle is a manufacturer of communication connectivity products to major service providers and installers.  Suttle was not subtle about their willingness to advocate against consumer interests when they signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Telecommunications Industry Association — “The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) is the leading trade association representing the global information and communications technology (ICT) industries through standards development, government affairs, business opportunities, market intelligence, certification and world-wide environmental regulatory compliance. With support from its 600 members, TIA enhances the business environment for companies involved in telecommunications, broadband, mobile wireless, information technology, networks, cable, satellite, unified communications, emergency communications and the greening of technology.” TIA members are extensive within the broadband industry. Filed comments with the FCC objecting to Net Neutrality in 2008.

Telework Coalition — The Telework Coalition brings together a diverse array of organizations, companies, and individuals with the common interest of promoting awareness and adoption of existing and emerging Telework and Telecommuting applications including telemedicine and distance learning, as well as addressing access to broadband services that may be needed to support these applications.

The Latino Coalition — TLC’s agenda is to develop initiatives and partnerships that will foster economic equivalency and enhance overall business, economic and social development of Latinos. The bottom of the website indicates “TLC Website presented by AT&T.” Both AT&T and Verizon are corporate partners of The Latino Coalition, which also belongs to astroturf group TV4Us. The Latino Coalition likes to involve itself in a lot of cable and broadcasting industry business. More details on this group can be found in part one.

Time Warner Cable – Broadband provider

United States Distance Learning Association — Serves the distance learning community by providing advocacy, information, networking and opportunity. Board member Raymond E. Hartfield works for AT&T. Emilio X. Gonzalez, director of public policy and strategic alliances at Verizon sits on their Advisory Board. He also sits on the board of MANA and the US Mexico Chamber of Commerce, both BfA members. Verizon is a 21st Century Benefactor of USDLA, which could explain why USDLA went out of its way to submit positive comments about the merger proposal between Verizon and NorthPoint Communications. More recently, in June, USDLA submitted comments to the FCC calling for a deregulatory approach to a national broadband plan, and went out of its way to oppose Net Neutrality.

United States Telecom Association — The trade association of broadband service providers, the organization doesn’t hide its opposition to Internet-related regulation. “Today’s calls for greater government intervention are to “fix” a problem that simply does not exist as far as today’s consumer of broadband services is concerned. This unnecessary intervention would slow broadband deployment and the arrival of a wide variety of pro-consumer advances.” They have a history of running astroturf campaigns, such as ‘The Future… Faster‘ which claimed to be a “coalition” that represents both “industry leaders” and “individual Americans.” If they put they period after ‘leaders,’ they would have been correct. Consumers were nowhere to be found. USTA has a history with Issue Dynamics, a DC lobbying firm and astroturf campaign creator.

US Cable Corporation — Broadband provider

US Cattlemen’s Association — The United States Cattlemen’s Association is a membership organization working for the grassroots cattle producer. Another major oddity in the BfA membership, the USCA’s focus on cattle seems to be completely non germane to broadband issues. Jon Wooster, president, wrote a letter to the FCC urging them to approve the merger between Verizon and Alltel: “We believe the merger between Verizon Wireless and Alltel will boost competition in the cell phone industry while bringing broadband and its innovations to all Americans – whether they live in downtown or on the farm. As an established wireless carrier, Verizon Wireless has the breadth and depth to make the significant investment in rural infrastructure that is so desperately needed. It has already poured billions into a new portion of the wireless spectrum just to deliver new high-speed (broadband) service to more Americans.” The group also signed their name to a Connected Nation letter to Congress saying, in part: “We believe Congress should adopt legislation this year that provides federal government support for state initiatives using public-private partnerships to identify gaps in broadband coverage and to develop both the supply of and demand for broadband in those areas.” The letter was also signed by AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and a whole host of astroturf groups and industry-affiliated organizations.

US Chamber of Commerce — Their slogan is “fighting for your business.” The nation’s largest industry trade association, they are always, by definition on business’ side.

US Internet Industry Association — The US Internet Industry Association (USIIA) is the North American trade association for Internet commerce, content and connectivity. Most USIIA members are broadband service providers. Works with Issue Dynamics, a Washington, DC public relations firm that engages in astroturf campaigns.

US Mexico Chamber of Commerce — The organization’s mission is to promote business between the United States and Mexico. How that relates to Americans for Broadband is an open question, although Emilio Gonzalez, Director of Public Policy & Strategic Alliances at Verizon who serves on the Board of Directors of this group might provide a possible answer. Gonzalez also serves on the boards of two other BfA members: MANA and the United States Distance Learning Association. Verizon’s logo also appears on the group’s home page. They are one of four listed sponsors.

Verizon — Broadband provider

Vermeer Manufacturing Company — Farm machinery and trenchless and trenching equipment from a construction equipment manufacturer. Also harvested was the fact Vermeer belongs to “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition opposing Net Neutrality.

Windstream Corporation — Broadband provider

Share/Save

Phillip "I Can See the Problem" Dampier

Yesterday’s proposal by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski gets Net Neutrality halfway there.  That already puts us ahead of Canadian broadband, which is a throttler’s paradise, but remember — an eventual FCC rulemaking is not a law.  An FCC policy is only as good as the agency’s willingness to enforce it.  If a new administration decides Net Neutrality is not to their liking, they could very well appoint new Commissioners who agree, and while they may not repeal such policies, they aren’t likely to spend time enforcing them either.

Americans must insist that Net Neutrality have the force of federal law, and that can be done by telling your member of Congress to co-sponsor the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (H.R. 3458.)

Canadians need to immediately appeal to their MPs and ask why Canada is stuck with throttling broadband providers that completely ignore Net Neutrality when the United States not only has a bill to codify Net Neutrality protections but a regulatory communications body that is going to enforce it as policy even without a new law.  That’s a far cry from the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) which has spent all year rubber-stamping the wish list of the broadband industry.  That’s simply unacceptable, and Canadians need to tell MPs their vote in the next round of elections will depend on which candidate has the best plan to solve this mess.  There is absolutely no justification for Canada falling behind the United States in broadband service.  If the CRTC won’t represent Canadian citizens, perhaps it’s time to get rid of it and let them form an industry trade group, which isn’t far off from where they are right now.

Net Neutrality alone is not nirvana for broadband consumers.  Indeed, there is every expectation some broadband providers may try to slap more Internet Overcharging schemes on consumers and try to blame Net Neutrality for it, under the false “either/or premise.”  Too often, public interest groups and some consumers have been led astray with the assumption that one is better than the other, and that’s a false choice.  Both are extremely bad for innovation, broadband advancement, and consumer adoption and acceptance of broadband service.  When you engage in Overcharging schemes like raising prices, imposing usage caps, meters, overlimit fees and penalties, some consumers will decide it just isn’t worth it.  Few consumers will risk using high bandwidth online applications of the future worried about their usage allowance for the month, or the penalty for exceeding it.

Free Press Illustrates the Telecom Industry's Lobbying Frenzy

Internet Overcharging schemes are not dead, although some of the earlier experiments have been temporarily shelved.  Some smaller providers in rural and small cities are already engaged in usage caps combined with consumption billing.  AT&T continues its experiment in Beaumont and Reno.  Comcast celebrated its first anniversary of the 250GB usage cap by leaving it right where it is, unchanged.  Wireless mobile broadband is a 5GB capped experience all-around.

Although I realize it is difficult to generate intensity when there aren’t big bad actors imminently dropping Internet Overcharging on millions of broadband customers, this is not the time to keep the pressure off.  Let’s make sure providers realize the intense, red hot hatred of gas gauges, meters, and all of the other Overcharging schemes has not cooled a single degree.  You can do that by making another round of phone calls and sending messages to your member of Congress to support Rep. Eric Massa’s Broadband Internet Fairness Act (H.R. 2902.)

This bill does -not- get the government involved in regulating the pricing of broadband service, as some astroturfers have alleged.  It simply demands proof that a provider has a financial need to engage in these practices, and in the absence of independent verification, protects consumers by prohibiting providers from leveraging their de facto monopoly/duopoly status and imposing them anyway.

No government legislation alone is ever going to solve all of our broadband problems and concerns.  But some pro-consumer protections protect our wallets from the undercompetitive broadband industry most of us have to deal with.

Don’t be fooled by providers openly wondering why such protections are necessary.  It was ironic watching yesterday’s panel discussion on broadband when David Young from Verizon started asking what problem Net Neutrality was trying to solve.  He didn’t see any and had no problem living under the open platform standard Genachowski proposed.  That’s ironic because Verizon has nearly 200 paid lobbyists fighting Net Neutrality and related telecommunications policy spending well over $10 million dollars on it this year.  If Young doesn’t see the problem, why are ratepayers and shareholders footing the bill to address it?

Share/Save

Mark Cuban, owner of HDNet, maintains a personal blog

Mark Cuban is on another tear this week.  Stop the Cap! reader Michael referred us to the latest.  This time it’s TV Everywhere, the cable industry’s answer to online video they get to own and control.

TV Everywhere is a concept put out by TV distributors that basically says that if you pay for cable or satellite, you should be able to watch the content you want, where you want. Everywhere. To some people this is not a good idea.  As is always the case,  many people think tv programming should be widely available for free on the internet.  Of course the content is never free. Someone has to pay to create it and we purchasers of cable and satellite services pay the subscription fees that pay the content companies and allow them to create all that content. Someone always must pay for free. Its unfortunate that there are some incredibly greedy people who think their entertainment needs should be subsidized. We aren’t talking healthcare, we are talking The Simpsons.  No one in the country has the right for their Simpsons to be subsidized.

I am uncertain why Mark is tilting at windmills here, fighting a battle with arguments that are beside the point.

He should know, as an independent programmer, permitting another cartel for video program distribution online has the potential to place control of that content in the hands of the pay television industry.  Agreements to carry a cable network on a cable system could easily become contingent on participation in TV Everywhere once it becomes more established.  Mark knows all about restrictive carriage agreements.  Some of his networks were trapped in a mini-premium HD tier on Time Warner Cable, despite his wishes to see them a part of the general HD lineup.  Once Time Warner Cable threw his networks off their cable systems nationwide, presumably so would go our online access to it as well.

For consumers, the basic concept of TV Everywhere seems like a positive development, if it brings online video content people want to see without charging them yet another fee on their pay television bill.  Consumers, raise your hand if you have a problem with more online video.

In fact, the loudest concerns about the entire endeavor these days are coming from the content producers and owners themselves.  They are the ones worrying about giving content away.

The Wall Street Journal chronicles the concerns:

While 24 networks are taking part in the Comcast trial, including Time Warner’s Turner cable networks, broadcaster CBS, AMC, BBC America, and Hallmark Channel, Walt Disney Co. (DIS) has so far avoided the “TV Everywhere” experiment because it doesn’t offer the Disney networks enough money in return for allowing their shows to be streamed over the Web.

“A new opportunity to reach consumers is very attractive … [but] we want to do so in a way that delivers proper compensation [to us] for that value,” said Disney Chief Financial Officer Tom Staggs, who spoke at the Goldman Sachs media conference on Tuesday.

That brought out Jeff Bewkes, Time Warner CEO, who scoffed at the demands for compensation.  Bewkes reminded Disney who is paying the bills.

“[The content providers are] not the ones who are going to the effort and expense of making this possible,” he remarked. “The ones that are making this possible are the distributors – the telcos, the satellite companies, the cable companies.”

Second, nobody is arguing that TV programming should be given away “free” online with absolutely no compensation.  The existing online video models are primarily advertiser supported.  The advertisers pay the costs to make the service available, and viewers endure online commercials during each ad break.  Some networks want to cram a ton of ads equaling the number a viewer would see on their television (get ready for more Snuggie and door draft stick on tape ads). Others are more realistic and will place a maximum of 30 seconds of commercials during each break.  Finding the right balance will be important — too many ads and consumers will pirate the content to avoid the ads.  Run smaller amounts and consumers will easily tolerate them.

Third, nobody I am aware of is arguing TV needs to be “subsidized.”  What does that even mean?

Besides the skirmish between content providers and the companies that want to distribute TV Everywhere, the concerns I’ve seen expressed include:

• The concentration and control of online video content through a cable industry-controlled authentication system that is long on generalities and short on specifics regarding how it will operate.  How do non-cable subscribers get “authenticated.”  What procedures are in place to protect the competitive data other providers will have to share with any authentication process?  How about customer privacy?  Is there equity of access to TV Everywhere regardless of the pay television service the consumer subscribes to?
• The credibility of the broadband providers’ argument that their networks are already overcrowded to the point they must “experiment” with usage caps, consumption billing, and other Internet Overcharging schemes.  Apparently their networks aren’t nearly as congested as they would have us believe, considering the fact they are participating in a project to place an even greater load on those networks.
• Mark seems to support content portability, namely the ability for a subscriber to place that content on any device for viewing.  Good luck.  Content producers go bananas over content that can be downloaded and viewed on any device or computer, because such open standards are also open to rampant piracy.

TV Everywhere can be a consumer value-added service for pay television providers, if it’s handled in a consumer friendly way.  The cable industry does not have an excellent track record of keeping their customers in love with them.  My personal concern is that what TV Everywhere gives away for free to “authenticated” subscribers today will tomorrow be packed with advertising, carry an additional fee for access on your cable bill, and will be just one more excuse to try and ram usage caps and consumption billing down the throats of the broadband customers trying to take advantage of their broadband service.

Share/Save