We are getting the message out about what will occur Wednesday here in North Carolina and you all are doing a great job writing and calling legislators to let them know not to support a Moratorium on Municipal Broadband Deployment.  But, we need to show up with an army of folks this Wednesday morning to show them we are involved and watching their every move.

Please try to be at the Legislative Office Building, Room 544, 300 North Salisbury Street in Raleigh this Wednesday at 9:30am.

In the original action alert we told you what was at stake.  I wanted to add some information I did not have at the time that makes this all the more interesting.

First, Sen. Daniel Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg County), who is a co-chair of the Committee is pushing this moratorium because, we are told, he believes that municipal broadband hurts the private sector and will negatively impact state tax revenue.

This is false.

For one, as far as we can tell, a corporation’s tax payments to the state are not a part of the public record, so exactly how Clodfelter does the math escapes us.

What is known is that broadband is a job stimulator, and considering North Carolina’s current broadband ranking is 41st out of 50 states, there is nowhere to go but up.  When businesses consider opening offices or facilities in a state, broadband can be an important deciding factor.  When companies like Time Warner Cable refuse to upgrade their broadband service, few digital businesses are going to consider making North Carolina their new home.

Clodfelter has enjoyed some non-broadband-related growth in his district — namely the brand spanking new $29 million Time Warner Cable headquarters office just constructed in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County.  Ironically, the same company that doesn’t want public dollars going to their potential competitors has no problem taking dollars themselves — the expansion in Charlotte was made possible in part by a Job Development Investment Grant from the State of North Carolina.  Job growth for Time Warner Cable?  Sure.  Job growth for companies that want better broadband?  Not so much.

Time Warner Cable's new $29 million dollar complex in Charlotte was made possible in part by a Job Development Investment Grant from the state government.

Next, Committee member Rep. Pryor Gibson (D-Anson, Union Counties) is, as we pointed out in the last action alert, a Time Warner Cable Contractor — and that was an understatement.  We made a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain additional information about Rep. Gibson’s interests outside his legislative duties.  According to his 2008 Statement of Economic Interest, under Job Title/Employer, Gibson prioritizes:

1. Manager, Time Warner Cable Construction
2. Legislator, NC General Assembly
3. self-employed, builder.

Gibson lists his job titles starting with "Time Warner Cable Contractor" in this Statement of Economic Interest obtained through a Freedom of Information Request (click to see the entire document - PDF)

Yes, he lists his Time Warner Cable job before legislator.  I guess we know whose interests he represents first.

Today, I am filing a complaint with the North Carolina Ethics Commission requesting that Gibson be forced to recuse himself from conversations about cable/telecommunications and that he abstain from any votes on these matters as a direct conflict of interest.  I also have a call into Speaker Joe Hackney’s office to request that he inquire about this issue as well.

It has been two months since the groundswell of support for Google’s Fiber Optic “Think Big With a Gig” Project became the issue for some 1,100 communities across our country, all jockeying to win the search engine giant’s favor.  We need to understand what this proposed moratorium really means for the state of North Carolina.

There was no shortage of applicants in this state, all clamoring for economic boosting, job growing, innovative super fast broadband.  Greensboro, Asheville, Durham and Wilmington were all represented, fully backed by local government officials.  What do 1,100 communities know that Clodfelter doesn’t?  That high speed broadband is America’s next great game-changing infrastructure project, as important as the canal system, railroads, highways, and airports were to past generations.  It’s no surprise those with vested interests in keeping things exactly as they are would fight to stop such projects.  But our legislators should not be enabling them.

What does it mean to Google, when sifting through the thousand plus applications, to find North Carolina’s legislature throwing up hostile opposition to expansive broadband projects?  Google is not going to get into the Internet Service Provider business.  Sooner or later, Google could easily turn such demonstration projects over to a local municipality once the search engine’s public policy agenda is fulfilled.  If this moratorium passes, they can’t do that.  But nothing prohibits them from selling it off to an incumbent provider like Time Warner Cable or CenturyLink.  Both would be more than happy to accept it I’m sure, all while maintaining today’s current high prices made possible from the ongoing broadband duopoly. Then again, seeing how North Carolina seeks to clamp down on broadband innovation, Google may just decide to look elsewhere.

Keep up the good work fighting for better broadband.  Continue writing and calling legislators on the issue and please be there Wednesday to let them know we are watching and that we will hold them to a higher standard then some of them hold themselves.  Be sure to report back what you are hearing in response, and please thank and support those that choose to reject this legislation.

Here again is the information for the membership of The Joint Revenue Laws Study Committee, so get on the phones and write those e-mails!:

(Please send individual messages to members, even if the contents are essentially the same — avoid simply CC’ing a single message to every representative.)

• Sen. Daniel Gray Clodfelter (Co-Chair) Mecklenberg Daniel.Clodfelter@ncleg.net (919) 715-8331 Democrat (704) 331-1041 Attorney
• Sen. Daniel T. Blue, Jr. Wake Dan.Blue@ncleg.net (919) 733-5752 Democrat (919) 833-1931 Attorney
• Sen. Peter Samuel Brunstetter Forsyth Peter.Brunstetter@ncleg.net (919) 733-7850 Republican (336) 747-6604 Attorney
• Sen. Fletcher Lee Hartsell, Jr. Cabarrus, Iredell Fletcher.Hartsell@ncleg.net (919) 733-7223 Republican (704) 786-5161 Attorney
• Sen. David W. Hoyle Gaston David.Hoyle@ncleg.net (919) 733-5734 Democrat (704) 867-0822 Real Estate Developer/Investor
• Sen. Samuel Clark Jenkins Edgecomb, Martin, Pitt Clark.Jenkins@ncleg.net (919) 715-3040 Democrat (252) 823-7029 W.S. Clark Farms
• Sen. Josh Stein Wake Josh.Stein@ncleg.net (919)715-6400 Democrat (919)715-6400 Lawyer
• Sen. Jerry W. Tillman Montgomery, Randolph Jerry.Tillman@ncleg.net (919) 733-5870 Republican (336) 431-5325 Ret’d school teacher
• Rep. Paul Luebke (Co-Chair) Durham Paul.Luebke@ncleg.net 919-733-7663 Democrat 919-286-0269 College Teacher
• Rep. Harold J. Brubaker Randolph Harold.Brubaker@ncleg.net 919-715-4946 Republican 336-629-5128 Real Estate Appraiser
• Rep. Becky Carney Mecklenberg Becky.Carney@ncleg.net 919-733-5827 Democrat 919-733-5827 Homemaker
• Rep. Pryor Allan Gibson, III Anson, Union Pryor.Gibson@ncleg.net 919-715-3007 Democrat 704-694-5957 Builder/TWC contractor
• Rep. Dewey Lewis Hill Brunswick, Columbus Dewey.Hill@ncleg.net 919-733-5830 Democrat 910-642-6044 Business Exec (Navy)
• Rep. Julia Craven Howard Davie, Iredell Julia.Howard@ncleg.net 919-733-5904 Republican 336-751-3538 Appraiser, Realtor
• Rep. Daniel Francis McComas New Hanover Danny.McComas@ncleg.net 919-733-5786 Republican 910-343-8372 Business Executive
• Rep. William C. McGee Forsyth William.McGee@ncleg.net 919-733-5747 Republican 336-766-4481 Retired (Army)
• Rep. William L. Wainwright Craven, Lenoir William.Wainwright@ncleg.net 919-733-5995 Democrat 252-447-7379 Presiding Elder
• Rep. Jennifer Weiss Wake Jennifer.Weiss@ncleg.net 919-715-3010 Democrat 919-715-3010 Lawyer-Mom

Share/Save

I receive a considerable amount of e-mail asking me a variety of questions about myself, this site, who backs it, and why we do things the way we do, so it’s time to launch a mailbag column here on Stop the Cap! to answer the mail, especially for those who may have similar questions along the way!

For this first round, I’ve left out the names.  I’ll be changing our Contact form shortly to allow readers to submit future questions here and specify if they want their names used or not during the answers.

Phillip "Where Is My August Vacation?" Dampier

Q. What companies, industries, or groups finance Stop the Cap! and its online efforts?

A. Stop the Cap! receives absolutely zero dollars from any company, industry, group, lobbyist, special interest, foundation, or anything even resembling one.  This website is 100% financed by myself and through individual contributions received from consumers who use the Donate button on the right.  We’re as far away from astroturf one can get.  Plastic grass is not for us.  There are groups out there that share the same consumer protection interests, and those groups will get mentioned here, but I am personally suspicious of any group that receives industry financing.

This site would not exist if Internet Service Providers had not started to abuse their market positions with Internet Overcharging experiments and schemes designed to limit consumers from using what is already a highly profitable service.  Usage caps, overlimit fees and penalties, and Net Neutrality violations like speed throttling are all anti-consumer, designed to reduce industry costs and discourage you from using your broadband service, all while still charging you more.

Q. I have read a few of your articles on Free Press’ Save the Internet website.  What relationship do you have with Free Press?

A. We are allies in the sense that their positions on issues have uniformly agreed with our own.  Great minds think alike, and their consistent pro-consumer positions on telecommunications issues make them a natural ally, particularly considering the higher profile they have, especially in Washington.  Despite attacks from some conservatives and astroturfers, Free Press does not accept industry money either, and is supported with the individual contributions of those who believe in their cause.  Free Press’ scope is also much broader than ours, taking positions on a wider range of issues.  The reprinting of some of our content helps us bring our own issues to the much larger base of consumer activists Free Press has, which has been instrumental in our Calls to Action when we need to reach out to elected officials or other policymakers.

We also have supported the efforts of Consumers Union, Public Knowledge, the Communications Workers of America, and several other public policy groups, but only on the issues where we share agreement.

Q. What is your usual schedule for publishing articles?

A. It has evolved over time, and depends mostly on how much newsworthy material is out there.  During the month of April, when Time Warner Cable was engaged in their Internet Overcharging experiment, articles were published here on a fast and furious basis because of rapid-changing developments.  August is always the slowest month of the year, as people enjoy the vacation time I don’t get.  This month, for example, we’ve broadened coverage to include competition and astroturfing reports that are not directly about Internet Overcharging, but will help us lay a foundation to help fight anti-consumer activities.  States are still being pressured to adopt industry-friendly legislation like statewide franchising.  It helps to point elected officials to concrete reports of just how anti-consumer those kinds of policies have proven to be in other states.

Articles are often not published on Friday and weekends because Friday is traditionally an errand-running day for me, and during the slower summer months, very little happens on weekends.  But if coverage warrants, you may find new content here published late into the evening and all weekend long.

In the morning, story coverage is planned for that day.  Readers’ story tips always get first consideration.  Most days there is a longer article that takes several hours to research and prepare, and at least one or two shorter items.  The average long article takes three to four hours to research, write, review, and publish.  Articles with multimedia content can take much longer.  Shorter articles typically take no more than one hour.  Most articles are published between 12pm-4pm ET.

Articles from our contributing writers will often turn up in the evening hours.  We are always looking for additional writers here.

Q. Why does Stop the Cap! cover Canada and other countries?

A. Internet Overcharging is Internet Overcharging no matter where it takes place.  Our Canadian coverage is extremely important because it illustrates how abusive industry practices can impact broadband service close to home.  Canada is illustrative of what can happen when an industry gets its way with a regulatory authority, which nearly rubber stamps whatever the industry wants to do to their customers.  The fact most Canadians are quite aware of how bad the abusive practices are is also informative to our readers who will get an industry “snowjob” Re-education effort sooner or later to try and convince them these abusive practices are just fine, because they are commonplace (inference: accepted) in other countries around the world, so they should be acceptable here.

Not. A. Chance.

Even in Australia and New Zealand, usage caps are discussed now as temporary necessities based on fiber backbone connectivity shortages, not as long term “solutions” to usage issues.

But most important of all, we have readers in all of these places, and this site’s universal opposition to Internet Overcharging schemes, and the fight to prevent/reverse them, should be a resource for any reader, no matter where they reside.

Q. Sometimes I am confused by some of the jargon on Stop the Cap! about things like “overbuilders” or “throttles,” etc.  What do these things mean?

A. I have covered the cable and satellite television industry since the late 1980s, so I have become comfortable using a lot of the common language other people in this industry use in everyday speech.  I try and avoid being a regular “jargon” offender, but sometimes these terms will slip through.  I am planning a small FAQ on some of the most commonly used industry phrases in the future.  Suffice to say, you can use Google most of the time to find the meaning of most of the industryspeak while waiting for me to write up a cheat sheet.

An “overbuilder” is a competing cable or telephone provider that invades another company’s turf and places their wiring next to the incumbent provider.  The term usually refers to a competitor using the same type of technology (ie. a second cable company or second phone company), but it doesn’t always get used that way.  It is rare to find an overbuilder in all but the largest cities.  Most communities obtain telecommunications services from one cable company, one phone company, and/or wireless phone/mobile phone providers.

A “throttle” refers, for our purposes, to an Internet provider that wants to reduce traffic on their broadband network.  The operator artificially slows down (or ‘throttles’) the speeds of certain online applications one can identify traveling across the network.  In most cases, this means “peer to peer” services like BitTorrent.  Since these applications can sometimes consume a lot of bandwidth in both directions, some providers want to slow them down so they don’t consume a lot of network resources.

Q. Do your write on any other issues?

A. My personal blog, linked on the right, often covers the cable television industry issues that are not specific to broadband, as well as technology, politics, and personal observations.  ConsumerTel focuses on phone company-specific issues.  Both sites are not updated as often as this one, currently because I am waiting for a major software update from the author of our “theme” (the look and feel and layout) which will test on those sites before launching here, and will require me to rethink some of the layout and format of all of these sites.

Q. What future plans do you have for this site?

A. I am working my way back through older content re-doing a lot of “tags” on our older articles so I can reintroduce a “Related Articles” feature that will highlight some of our earlier content that is related to a topic covered more recently.  For that to work well, tags must be more comprehensive.  I also see our multimedia content here is very popular, and I spend a lot of time locating and embedding that content for our readers.  Our embedded players do not always work well for every browser, so work finding better solutions is also underway.  E-Mail notification of new content is an often requested feature, and one currently being explored.  Adjustments to our theme have already been mentioned, and will also be forthcoming.

But overall, the future of Stop the Cap! depends on what the broadband industry does.  If they abandon Internet Overcharging schemes, stop opposing Net Neutrality, and quit abusing consumers, this site closes down and I get to do something else.  Somehow, I doubt we’ll manage to get all three of these goals.  Our future depends mostly on their behavior in the coming months.

Share/Save

The NoChokePoints Coalition has a point.  They are a coalition of public interest groups and providers like British Telecom and Sprint-Nextel that are upset with monopolistic pricing for high speed broadband lines.  Verizon and AT&T “control the broadband lines of almost every business in the United States” the coalition states, and “generates a profit margin of more than 100% for the controlling phone companies.”

“Releasing the broadband economy from the chokehold these huge phone companies have on the special access market will be a catalyst for innovation and investment in the broadband marketplace, something we desperately need,” said Maura Corbett, spokeswoman for the NoChokePoints coalition.

“Every time you send an email, withdraw money from an ATM, or use your wireless phone, your information travels on these high-capacity lines. Excessive pricing and other market abuses by these companies have long been an issue of concern at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Nearly five years ago, after many complaints by broadband customers in several FCC proceedings, the Commission began a review of the high-capacity broadband market to determine the changes needed to ensure reasonable prices. Despite ample evidence of excessive pricing, the Commission inexplicably has yet to take any action.”

“The Obama administration, Congress, and the FCC repeatedly emphasize the importance of broadband to our economic recovery and, frankly, it defies explanation that we are still fighting this market abuse,” Corbett continued. “Huge companies like Verizon and AT&T control the broadband lines of almost every business in the United States. The virtually unchallenged, exclusive control of these lines costs businesses and consumers more than $10 billion annually and generates a profit margin of more than 100 percent for the controlling phone companies, according to their own data provided to the FCC. This hidden broadband tax results in enormous losses for consumers and the economy, and this country cannot afford it; especially now.”

NoChokePoints cited four central principles of its campaign to reform the special access market: (1) the special access market is broken; (2) the outgoing Federal Communications Commission made a bad situation worse by failing to address obvious market abuse by these huge phone companies; (3) this unchecked market control continues to slow broadband deployment, compromise innovation and harm our national information economy; and (4) the resulting market failure must be corrected now.

Yes, when one or two providers get together and establish pricing for a product that is way out of line for what it costs to provide, and uses that control to further squeeze every last penny they can from customers, something should be done.

As consumers, we should agree to join the NoChokePoints coalition struggle.  There are several very credible pro-consumer organizations that support the Coalition and its goals.  And consumers like myself shall, mere seconds after:

Member BT (British Telecom) stops throttling UK customer’s broadband connections, and imposing Internet Overcharging schemes on customers through limits on their data consumption.

Member Sprint-Nextel agrees that consumers should be able to request temporary suspension of their wireless data account, currently limited to 5GB of consumption per month, the moment the limit is reached to avoid the potential of paying overlimit fees, if/when applicable.

TW Telecom gets a pass here as they are entirely independent from Time Warner Cable.

Internet Overcharging schemes, monopolistic control, abuse of market pricing, and other anti-competitive behavior should be confronted.  But companies engaged in problematic behavior themselves should not anticipate a great deal of consumer compassion towards their plight, when those consumers often are on the receiving end of that problematic behavior themselves.

Share/Save

This week’s finding from the Pew Internet & American Life Project:

Where competition exists in broadband, prices are significantly lower than in areas where competition does not exist or is limited.

This is, of course, common sense.  But it underlines the importance of broadband competition to control pricing and overcharging schemes.  Broadband prices have been increasing in the United States, along with the number of customers, the revenues earned from those customers, and the loyalty customers to their broadband service.

What has decreased, despite the growth in broadband pricing, revenues, and customers, is some providers’ investments in their own networks to keep up with that growth.  In 2008, Time Warner Cable’s annual report showed interesting results:

“In 2007, TW made $3,730 Million, on high speed data alone, and then had to turn around and spend $164 Million to support the cost of the network. 2007 total profit on high speed data: $3.566 Billion”

“In 2008, TW made $4,159 Million, on high speed data alone, and then had to turn around and spend $146 Million to support the cost of the network. 2008 total profit on high speed data: $4.013 Billion”

“It cost TW 11% less money in 2008, to keep their network running, than in 2007.”

These numbers illustrate the folly of crying poverty when asked why network upgrades aren’t being performed to support evolving growth in usage.  Instead, the meme of “heavy downloaders are costing light users money and slowdowns” is part of the Re-education campaign to justify Internet Overcharging.

Yet broadband prices are continuing to climb even with reduced investments by many providers.  Pew found pricing up across all classes of broadband service, significantly so between 2008 and 2009.  Pressure on revenues from the video side of the cable business are partly responsible as investor demands for profits demand results.  Consumers, responding to a poor economy, have been cutting back on their cable TV package, especially premium channels, pay-per-view, and add-ons of extra channels.  A few are abandoning cable/satellite TV altogether, relying on their broadband connection and online video, a prospect that terrifies those providing traditional cable-like programming packages.

Some 84% of home broadband users see their fast connection as “somewhat important” or “very important.” This increasing reliance on broadband is turning a convenience into a necessary utility.  Yet the industry that provides it is under very little scrutiny and has largely been deregulated, with only limited oversight possible.

The results have been mixed.  Americans living in areas lucky enough to experience robust competition have fast, reliable service at low prices, with only limited efforts to impose Internet Overcharging schemes.

In areas with more limited competition, particularly when those competitors do not provide an equivalent level of service consistently across their service area (fast consistent cable modem service vs. variable, speed-challenged DSL), mischief by the dominant provider is increasingly common.  “Experiments” to increase prices, limit use, require customers to purchase or rent equipment, or impose annual or bi-annual service contracts, and/or  limited advancements in speed are not atypical.

Rural communities, in particular, remain exposed to many challenges — high prices for installation and service, slow/uneven speeds, contracts, and usage allowances are all commonplace.

The Obama Administration intends to spend tens of millions of dollars to improve broadband in the United States.  Unfortunately, many worthwhile projects and ideas are up against schemes from less worthy providers and groups that have teams of lobbyists and connected “interest groups” proposing spending that carries few limitations, little oversight, and loads of loopholes.  In some cases, needed project funds could even be diverted away from new projects altogether.

The Pew Study summarized its findings:

Home broadband adoption stood at 63% of adult Americans as of April 2009, up from 55% in May, 2008.

The latest findings of the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project mark a departure from the stagnation in home high-speed adoption rates that had prevailed from December, 2007 through December, 2008. During that period, Project surveys found that home broadband penetration remained in a narrow range between 54% and 57%.

The greatest growth in broadband adoption in the past year has taken place among population subgroups which have below average usage rates. Among them:

• Senior citizens: Broadband usage among adults ages 65 or older grew from 19% in May, 2008 to 30% in April, 2009.
• Low-income Americans: Two groups of low-income Americans saw strong broadband growth from 2008 to 2009.
  • Respondents living in households whose annual household income is $20,000 or less, saw broadband adoption grow from 25% in 2008 to 35% in 2009.
  • Respondents living in households whose annual incomes are between $20,000 and $30,000 annually experienced a growth in broadband penetration from 42% to 53%.

Share/Save

"This is not a rate increase, this is about fair pricing for everyone, seriously."

It’s always awful when you wake up with a bad taste in your mouth.  That’s the flavor of industry hacks and sock puppets who spent a good part of yesterday and last night on the attack against Rep. Eric Massa and your consumer interests.  Part of this battle is about engaging those who claim to represent consumers, but actually turn out to be paid by a lobbyist firm or “think tank,” usually located either in or near Washington, DC.  They are typically unwilling to disclose that involvement.  I’m not.  When called out, the typical response ranges from silence to ‘I would be saying the same things even if I didn’t get paid by them.’

Sure they would.

Consumers need to be particularly vigilant about the Say for Pay crowd of sock puppets that arrive in quotations in articles that attack common sense pro-consumer positions, or in the comments  below an online article.

Now you may be asking what in the world is a “sock puppet.”  Craig Aaron at Free Press explains:

Sock puppets, for those unfamiliar with the creatures commonly found inside the Beltway, are mouthpieces who rent out their academic or political credentials to argue pro-industry positions. These pay-to-sway professionals issue white papers, file comments with key agencies, and present themselves to the press as independent analysts. But their views have a funny way of shifting depending on who’s writing the checks. (To be clear, at Free Press we take no industry money.)

Sock puppets and astroturf groups go hand in hand.  If you remember, we’ve exposed a number of these groups that claim they are standing up for consumers, but in reality are paid to sit down and absorb their industry backer’s talking points.  The snowjob that typically follows claims that if you do the pro-consumer common sense thing, such as not allowing Internet Overcharging schemes to rip people off, you’ll destroy the Internet, America, and maybe even freedom itself.  Besides, just look at the “expert credentials” of our guy telling you that.

When you boil it all down, sock puppets are people who feel morally fine with taking money for being willing to assume any position you want them to take.  It’s vaguely familiar to another profession that’s been around for a very long time.  One just has better office space than the other, and better business cards, too.

If you want to explore a perfect example of sock puppetry at work, with a group trying to get public taxpayer money to benefit big telephone and cable companies with few strings attached, check out Craig Aaron’s article on the subject this past January.

In Stop the Cap!‘s history, we’ve debated a representative from Nemertes Research who refuses to disclose who pays for their industry research reports that conveniently say exactly what the telecommunications industry’s positions are on the broadband issues of the day.  We’ve questioned a group that claims that “openness” or “neutrality” of the Internet is irrelevant, and called out the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research (you gotta love the name — it’s a delicious consumery-sounding word salad… with special interest croutons sprinkled all over the top), who applauded Internet Overcharging as a great thing for customers, except they were packed with lobbyists to really satisfy big telecom interests.

Readers of this site should be well-qualified to engage industry propaganda and consumer misconceptions about the fairness of Internet Overcharging schemes.  You’ve gotten the information you need to effectively educate consumers and expose the sock puppetry.  The entire reason this group exists is because we realized the fight is not over, and we’d need an army prepared to combat the Re-education campaign we were promised back in April.  The battle is fully engaged now, and I’ve been happy to see many of you joining conversations on other sites where misconceptions and sock puppets prevail, and helping to educate consumers with facts, not focus group-tested propaganda.

We need many more of you to do likewise.  If your local newspaper runs an article on Rep. Massa’s bill, or our issues, take a look at the article online and look at the comments being left by readers.  Encounter misconceptions?  Help educate people.  Discover a sock puppet browbeating consumers for standing up for common sense reform of the broadband industry?  Defend the consumer’s point of view and don’t allow anyone to berate you with smug, fact-free answers.  Most are unprepared to respond with actual evidence to back their views, just a load of industry rhetoric and evidence-free claims they have expertise you don’t.

I encountered this myself last evening, when an industry sock puppet alternated between allusions that people who oppose Internet Overcharging were content thieves and pirates or were a “special interest group” that wanted someone else to pay more for their usage.  A few minutes of basic research revealed a fact he failed to disclose — he’s employed by a Washington, DC-based think tank, appropriately located on K Street in Washington.  The same group that tangled with Free Press’ Aaron, who rightfully objected to their proposal to hand $30 billion in taxpayer money over to big telecom for, essentially, anything they want.  They don’t call them “K Street” lobbyists for nothing. Stop the Cap! reader Michael was there as well, also asking for the evidence he couldn’t produce.

Here comes the Astroturf

After a few rounds, the debate ended over his insistence his employer wasn’t located on K Street at all.  Wow.

Moving forward to industry hackery, which is more or less the same thing, only more direct, the opposition was predictable and transparent.

The American Cable Association, which is made up primarily of smaller, independent providers who likely are too small to even face scrutiny by this bill told Multichannel News:

“Consumption-based billing plans will give consumers the ultimate control over how much they spend each month for their Internet access. Rep. Massa’s bill would have a chilling effect on broadband operators offering these types of consumer-friendly options,” said ACA president Matthew Polka in a statement. “During his Senate confirmation Tuesday, Federal Communications Commission member Robert McDowell noted that Americans today are watching a staggering 17 billion online videos each month, a use of the Internet that he said is growing at 16% per month. With these increases coming, Internet usage payment models will allow broadband providers to better manage their networks by imposing higher costs on the heaviest users who often are the ones responsible for slowing speeds for all users on the Internet.”

ACA represents small and medium-sized cable operators. At its convention last month, ACA members made clear to reporters that consumption-based billing was definitely in their future.

Of course, when consumers empower themselves to verify these claims, we discover the manufactured “panic attack” over broadband growth and the “consumer-friendly” choice of overcharging people for their accounts, is not borne out by the staggering profits earned by the industry based on the current pricing model, especially as bandwidth costs continue their rapid decline (along with the investments many companies make to ‘better manage their networks.’)

As we’ve learned, this is much more about managing high profits and investor return, and controlling the threat of online video from eating into the cable industry’s cable TV package business.

At least the ACA is consistent.  They always leave the consumer out in the cold.

Broadband Reports, which has been around far longer than most, has years of experience in identifying what’s fact and what’s fiction.  They pick up on AT&T’s response:

AT&T, who’s conducting metered billing trials in both Beaumont Texas and Reno, Nevada, was quick to respond when asked for comment. “The Free Press Solution advocates for a radical and unprecedented government mandate that will demand that consumers have only one all-you-can-eat pricing model for Internet services,” says the carrier. “Free Press prefers that grandma – who simply wants to download their grandchildren’s online photos a few times a month – to pay for the heavy-using teenager who is downloading HD movies.”

The argument that light users (grandma) “cross subsidizes” heavier users is a familiar — and incorrect — talking point. Taken to its logical conclusion, “grandma” should be paying $3 a month for bandwidth — a service tier you’ll surely never see AT&T offer. Likewise, if AT&T was truly only interested in managing heavy users, they could target them specifically by migrating them to business class tiers or by instituting a high cap only those users would hit. Instead, these metered billing efforts are aimed at impacting all users.

Again, regardless of the ocean of carrier rhetoric on this front, the push toward metered billing isn’t about the users of today, it’s about nickel and diming the Internet video users of tomorrow. Should users begin getting TV content online and find that subscribing to AT&T U-Verse wasn’t necessary, AT&T then has a way to ensure that they can offset this lost revenue with bandwidth surcharges.

The push is primarily focused on pleasing investors, who likewise see the protectionist aspect, but also adore the idea of consumers paying more money for the same product — a product that’s getting incrementally cheaper to supply. There’s a huge push for this coming from the investment community, and as we predicted, the industry’s giants are going to spend millions on farmed data, lobbyists and public relations in order to get their way.

When weighing who actually represents consumers more fairly, Free Press or AT&T, it’s a debate that ends before it gets started.  Free Press doesn’t take a penny of industry money and advocates for consumers and wants faster, cheaper, and more competitive broadband.  AT&T -IS- industry money, which it gives to astroturf groups, wants to accept government money to construct broadband networks and, hopefully, impose Internet Overcharging schemes on them, and has a track record of opposing Net Neutrality and competition, as several communities working towards municipal broadband have come to learn.

Grandma’s wallet is safer with the Free Press.  AT&T wants to take out all of the cash for her own ‘best interests’ and then hand it back, empty.

Share/Save

I know everyone will have questions about HR 2902, the bill introduced this morning by Rep. Eric Massa.  We’ve been working with Free Press and Eric’s staff for the past several weeks behind the scenes on this legislation, and there are some things that I am certain our readers will be asking about, so before things get scattered across multiple articles, I am creating this one to take questions in the comment section and also to update people on answers on an ongoing basis.

I also want readers to understand there are reasons why I may not be able to answer certain questions completely.  In some cases, it’s because I don’t know the answer, but I will try and find one.  For some others, please trust my judgment and that of the congressman.  There are reasons for doing certain things in certain ways.  I’ve been just as outspoken with the congressman’s office as I’ve been here.  They know the mission statement for our site, and our issues.

Q. Why does HR 2902 not simply ban tiered pricing outright and who decides what “unreasonable” pricing means?

A. Legislation must not only become law but also withstand legal scrutiny.  The bill is designed to accomplish what needs to be done – preventing providers from launching Internet Overcharging schemes that, upon review by the appropriate agencies, are simply economically unjustified.  These decisions are not arbitrary — there are mechanisms and measurements that take into account provider costs and what they then try to turn around and charge us.

Q. Why does the legislation not speak directly about usage caps?

A. It covers them in a roundabout way, and there are some additional reasons for structuring the language this way.  Believe me when I say this was not an issue we’d forget about, considering this site was founded on that issue, even before nonsensical tiered overcharging schemes showed up.  Stop the Cap! opposes usage caps, period.

Q. Why does the bill exempt small providers with less than 2,000,000 customers?

A. Until the broadband stimulus package begins to help guarantee reasonable access and prices for all Americans, small providers, often in rural communities, have to find wholesale broadband access at significantly higher expense than major providers do.  A number of those providers, including those run by municipalities, are with us on most of our issues, but they confront additional challenges that simply make it easier to exclude them from the language at this time.  When access finally becomes inexpensive and plentiful from coast to coast, providers will find few justifications to need an exemption in the first place.  Stop the Cap! fully supports major expansions in rural broadband to provide people living in small communities with the same kinds of access those of us in more urban areas enjoy, at comparable prices and speeds.

Q. Does the bill address Net Neutrality issues?

A. Predominately from the perspective of tiered pricing, and its side effect of discouraging use of your Internet service out of fear of going over your “allowance.”  Net Neutrality is a critically important issue that will need to be addressed by Congress and regulators.  Stop the Cap! will be a part of that fight.  Our current concerns are more targeted and immediate — while the Re-Education campaign to promote Internet Overcharging schemes continues, we felt it was critical to “stop this train before it ever reaches the station.”  Otherwise, why worry about Net Neutrality at all if your provider increases your rates 300% and you can’t afford to be online in the first place?

As other legislative initiatives become apparent, we’ll issue Calls to Action on those as well.  Net Neutrality and Internet Overcharging are two issues that require constant vigilance.  One is good, the other very bad.

Q. What do we, as readers have to do next?

A. Stop the Cap!, Congressman Massa, and Free Press have done our part, now you MUST do yours.  We’ve updated the Take Action! section with specific step by step instructions on how to move this bill forward, starting with getting co-sponsors, critical for the bill’s chances.  Every American needs to get on the phone today.  After you hang up, also take a minute and fill out this form from Free Press.  Remember, phone calls to a congressional office deliver the most powerful impact.  Written letters and faxes get attention as well, but send mailed letters to one of the district offices nearest you instead of Washington.  Security precautions can cause substantial delays because of mail screening procedures in the nation’s capital.  Residents within a congressional district can also e-mail their member of Congress through a representative’s web page.  Read the Take Action! section for complete instructions.

Then, have you thanked Rep. Massa?  Not only should you send him a message of thanks (district office contact information follows), but we also need to recognize he has a target on his back from powerful special interests that will want him out of office.  Stop the Cap! will have a contribution link up shortly to help us help him stay in office, representing our interests.  We support those who support us!  More details on that later.

If you believe in the work Stop the Cap! is doing, help us pay our bills as well.  The Paypal link on the right helps us “keep the lights on,” and will help our outreach efforts to gain support for this legislation.  We’re not funded by anyone but ordinary consumers (and me out of my own pocket, of course).  We only answer to each other.

Congressman Eric Massa

Washington DC Office
Phone: (202) 225-3161
Fax: (202) 226-6599

Corning District Office
89 W. Market Street
Corning, NY 14830
Phone: (607) 654-7566
Fax: (607) 654-7568

Olean District Office
317 North Union Street
Olean, NY 14760
Phone: (716) 372-2090
Fax: (716) 372-2869

Pittsford District Office
1 Grove St
Suite 101
Pittsford, NY 14534
Phone: (585) 218-0040
Fax: (585) 218-0053

Share/Save

The Pacific Technology Alliance claims to be a "grassroots" organization representing consumer interests.

From time to time, Stop the Cap! readers send us news tips based on things they find in their local newspaper or online.  Shaffa in Seattle sent us a link to a letter to the editor in the Seattle Times which seemed to be right up our alley.  The writer, Tom Gurr, executive director of something called the Pacific Technology Alliance, wrote the newspaper advocating the redefining of broadband as “a necessary, transformative element to modern life.”  Gurr advocates widespread deployment of broadband service to all Americans.  So far so good.

We cannot overstate the economic impact, to both the individual and the nation, of building out broadband infrastructure and making it available and accessible to all. But not all Americans have access to broadband, and not all Americans who have access are able to use broadband. Price or concerns about privacy and data security are barriers for some. For these individuals and communities, the degree of “openness” or “neutrality” of the network is irrelevant.

America can universally reap the rewards of broadband through its infrastructure deployment, removal of barriers to adoption and investment in more efficient and cost-effective smart networks needed for tomorrow’s dynamic and ever-evolving applications and content.

Whoops… what was that part about “openness” or “neutrality” of the network being “irrelevant?”

As Stop the Cap! readers already know, Net Neutrality issues can go hand in hand with availability and price, and I have yet to meet anyone who hasn’t pondered how private their information is kept (particularly their credit card numbers used online) and how secure their computers are from external attack from viruses and spyware.

In communities with little competition, speed can fall behind more competitive cities nearby.  Prices are almost always lower when providers do battle to secure and keep customers.  Interfering with a consumer’s broadband service to maximize revenue or protect existing business models is a risky proposition if your biggest competitor doesn’t.  Customers will flee across town to “the other guy” for service.

It seemed odd to advocate for widespread broadband deployment while taking time out to swipe at Net Neutrality.  The closing line of the letter seemed slightly vague as well, so it was time to bring out The Google and figure out where this organization is coming from.

Upon arrival at the Pacific Technology Alliance, web visitors will find “partner” logos sweeping on and off the right side of the page.  The very first logo appearing for me was for good old AT&T.  Other “partners” include:

• Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
• Association of Washington State Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
• Women Impacting Public Policy
• National Federation of Independent Business
• Washington Farm Bureau
• OregonWatchdog.com

That’s an odd assortment of partners for a group Gurr told the Oregon Biz Report was, “a grassroots, technology association that will be active in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana and Hawaii.”

It’s an open question how much “grassroots” can be found from AT&T, big Pharma, a conservative business association (NFIB), and an anti-tax news website, among others.

“PacTech is working to keep consumers and policy-makers educated and informed about the major emerging communications and technology-related issues that impact consumer’s lives,” Gurr continued.

It might be a surprise to learn the Washington Farm Bureau and the Association of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce would take an interest in broadband just for the benefit of consumers.  AT&T’s involvement is also entirely for the consumer’s benefit, I’m sure.

Mission:
The mission of the Pacific Technology Alliance (PacTech) is to educate citizens and policy makers about emerging technology issues and to promote policies that foster competition, innovation, increased choice and access to technology.

Principles:
Technology and innovation should be left to the market place – government should not be choosing winners and losers.
Citizens deserve a voice in the public policy process that impacts technology, innovation and the products and services they use.
The community and consumers benefit from innovation and competition.

At first glance, the group’s principles would seem to fit nicely with conservatives who believe in free market approaches to commerce.  Too bad AT&T and others integrally involved in broadband deployment don’t always agree.  Many private companies building broadband networks are fiercely lobbying for access to taxpayer dollars and credits available from the Obama Administration’s broadband stimulus fund to help defray the costs of building those networks in rural areas.  Why ask private investors to pay if the government will instead?

Meandering around the rest of the issues featured on Pacific Technology Alliance’s website, it becomes clear the primary agenda at work here is that of the “partners” supporting the work.  That’s classic astroturfing – pretending to represent the interests of ordinary consumers while actually representing the interests of the organizations and companies that comprise or support the group.  Consumer interests are secondary, if represented at all on several important issues:

Net Neutrality: “Where proponents of Net Neutrality would have people believe it is about first amendment issues, what it really consists of is an effort by content providers to force network builders to provide them with unlimited bandwidth for free. They have asked Congress and State Legislatures around the country to regulate how private companies invest their capital and construct private networks to suit their needs all in the name of “Net Neutrality”. We think this would harm the growth of the internet, slow investment in this vital infrastructure and impede the growth of technology. We intend to oppose it at every level.”

Opposing Net Neutrality is absolutely anti-consumer for any broadband customer trying to access content on a service they pay for.  Consumers could find content limited, impeded, or prohibitively expensive because a company with a vested interest in controlling the growth of services like online video could seek to impose Internet Overcharging schemes to discourage subscribers from using that content.  Content providers often drive  consumers to subscribe to broadband service in the first place.  Subscribers already pay for access to this content, enriching broadband providers.  Demanding that both subscribers and content providers pay is asking to be paid twice.  That’s not about fairness — it’s about profiteering.

In countries where Net Neutrality protection is not afforded (Canada being an excellent nearby example), the proof of the impact is crystal clear.  It harmed the growth of the Internet in Canada, diminished the country’s position in broadband penetration, cost, and speed, and allowed providers to reduce investment because demand for broadband was artificially limited by Internet Overcharging schemes.  If anything has impeded the growth of technology in Canada, the lack of Net Neutrality and permitting Internet Overcharging schemes are high on the list.  PacTech’s views are in direct opposition to reality on the ground in North America, and don’t exist in the minds of most consumers.  They do exist in the corporate headquarters of broadband providers who seek to leverage additional profits by limiting/discouraging consumption.

U.S. Broadband Policy: “This study recommends we employ a combination of tax credits, incentives and government funding to encourage wider expansion of broadband to both rural and urban areas and increase access and adoption rates.” (This quotation introduces an article linked from the website, which would presumably also be in agreement with their views on the matter.)

What would the free market proponents say about giving out tax incentives and government money for broadband deployment?  One of the realities of broadband in this country is that most markets have just one or two providers, which exist as either virtual monopolies or duopolies.  In rural areas, if broadband is available at all, it is slow and expensive.  The reality is that free market solutions are unlikely to deploy advanced technology networks like fiber to the home except in the largest communities in America.  We agree that incentives may be necessary to guarantee deployment, but they should not simply be handed over to providers like AT&T to construct networks and not expect government conditions and oversight.  No public funds should be given to providers who construct networks they then use to extract massive profits through the use of Internet Overcharging schemes and arbitrary limits on usage.  Municipally owned broadband networks should also be an available option, without private providers burying communities in lawsuits.

Internet Tax Moratorium: “There is no doubt this tax moratorium has driven the growth of the internet, just look at where the internet has come since 1998. This policy has reduced the digital divide, driven innovation and improved our overall economy enormously. Internet use is growing at an astounding rate and new services and content become available to consumers everyday.”

The limits on imposing taxes have more accurately driven the growth of e-commerce on the Internet more than the Internet itself.  It’s not convincing to suggest the absence of taxes has reduced the digital divide, particularly when providers have been increasing rates in several areas.  The drive in innovation and improvements in the economy relate to the profit-making potential of online business, not necessarily the Internet in general.  That being said, few consumers seek higher taxes for anything.

Wireless Telephone Deregulation Must Be Preserved: “We have more choices in our wireless devices, features, calling plans and we pay less than nearly every country in the world. A lightly-regulated wireless market has successfully delivered innovative technology and flexible contract terms. The Washington Policy Center recently studied the issue and came to the same conclusions; we have linked to their study below. Over regulation of this critical industry will only serve to damage wireless consumers and we intend to oppose any measure that goes too far.”

Reviewing some of the linked articles on the website point to arcane proposals, such as making wireless phones interoperable on any carrier’s network, something hardly on the front burner legislatively.  A few of the linked articles lead nowhere, so it is unclear what the focus is on this group’s objections to wireless industry regulation.  They most recently pointed to the reduction in price for the newly released Apple iPhone to be an example of the free market at work.  That’s an ironic proposition, considering AT&T retains a monopoly on the iPhone and service for it at this time.

Many astroturf organizations do occasionally advocate for interests that fall in line with what most consumers want.  But their advocacy comes with a lot of caveats — namely, understanding who ultimately pays the bills to keep the office open, who sits on the organization’s board of directors, and what potential conflicts of interest or agendas might follow.  Always follow the money because most groups first and foremost answer to those handing it to them.

Share/Save

We are still tracking down some nuisance bugs, and have had a report of at least one browser crash when trying to visit our site.

The bug we are currently aware of, particularly for those running Mac OS 10.5 and Safari 4 is:

Error #2044: Unhandled IOErrorEvent:. text=Error #2124: Loaded file is an unknown type.

We *think* that is related to one of the video players (the one that shows a blank screen before starting a video).

If you are experiencing that error, let me know if you can clear it and still access video, or if it completely disrupts your visits here.

Any other error reports should include:

• Your operating system (XP, Vista, OS10, etc.)
• Your browser & version
• If the error occurs only in one browser, some, or all browsers.
• If you are disabling Macromedia Flash (if you know)
• The exact error message you see, if you see one.
• If there is a specific action you take which routinely causes the error problem.

Because some errors might impact your ability to use our contact form, you can e-mail me directly at:  bugswat (-at-) phillipdampier.com or reply as a comment here.

You should replace the (-at-) with @ like you would with any e-mail address (example@mailaddress.com).   I use this format to keep those spam e-mail address harvesters from picking up my e-mail address and blitzing me.

When we are confident the bug(s) are gone, this message will disappear.

Thanks for your help.

Share/Save

iAWFUL (which stands for Internet Advocates Watchlist for Ugly Laws) launched this week, calling attention to the “most reckless and misguided laws” impacting the Internet.

The site, a project of NetChoice, a Washington, DC eCommerce advocacy group, particularly opposes what they feel are “misguided” regulatory approaches to online problems by well meaning lawmakers, often on the state level. NetChoice claims to be a coalition of trade associations, eCommerce businesses, and online consumers, “all of whom share the goal of promoting convenience, choice and commerce on the Net.”

The inaugural list of the worst contains several state tax initiatives targeting Internet commerce, rules forcing websites to spend more time and effort enforcing their abuse of service policies, and an effort to regulate online ticket sales.  NetChoice also challenges efforts by lawmakers to incorporate certain standards, such as security and encryption, into law.

Presumably, the weight given to determining which are the “worst” laws is determined in part by the group’s members:

1-800-Contacts
America Online/Time Warner
American Vintners Association
Association for Competitive Technology
eBay
Electronic Retailing Association
IAC
Internet Alliance
NewsCorp
Oracle
Overstock.com
VeriSign
Yahoo!
The Wine Institute

One of the intended purposes of the iAWFUL list is to draft consumers into the fight against the targeted legislation.  While most of the inaugural list’s targets are anti-consumer, NetChoice doesn’t answer exclusively to those consumers.  They answer to the members who belong to the organization.  Often, the interests of consumers and business do merge, but not always.

Knee-jerk, overly prescriptive laws can destroy whole business models or stifle innovative new forms of communication before they have a chance to emerge. Too many laws are proposed without considering unintended harm they may cause to thousands of Internet companies and millions of Internet users.

NetChoice is dedicated to fighting these attacks on core Internet principles.

Destroying business models may not always be anti-consumer.  On our own issue of Internet Overcharging, could legislation designed to put an end to it be seen as a friend or foe to NetChoice?  A business model alone may be worthy of fighting to protect, but as Stop the Cap! readers understand, that isn’t always true.  Legislators are not the only ones capable of engaging in overreaching antics.  Some of NetChoice’s member companies have done that themselves.

Care must also be given to determine the exact definitions of “stifling” and “core Internet principles.”  The former may be a matter of perspective, the latter is not defined at all.

Perhaps iAWFUL will be a consistently positive asset for consumers and will not incorporate laws designed to protect consumers from anti-competitive behavior and Internet Overcharging onto their top 10 list.  Time will tell.  But consumers should always be wary about Internet organizations that claim to represent consumer interests, but rely on industry money to keep the lights on.  Some of those groups, particularly those in Washington, turn out to be astroturf organizations that claim to represent ordinary citizens, but really front for commercial interests, which often have a different agenda.

Share/Save

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share/Save

The Federal Communications Commission is accepting comments from citizens until July 8, 2009 as they craft a national broadband plan.  Free Press’ Save the Internet campaign has made sending our comments a lot easier for you and I.  They’ve created an online form that directly interfaces with the FCC’s formal comment submission system.  They have pre-filled a sample message to send to the Commission for consideration, but I strongly recommend you write one of your own.  Net Neutrality is a critically important issue for Stop the Cap!, but there is room to also share your thoughts on usage caps, metered pricing, competition and oversight — all of the issues we focus on regularly here.

They are already hearing from special interests and lobbyists attempting to influence the Commission into creating a broadband policy that caters to the whims of commercial interests.  It is paramount that the Internet first and foremost serve the interests of the people.

For the first time in a long time, every citizen can have a voice heard by anyone who wants to listen.  The impact and importance of that voice is judged on the merit of the message, not on how much money, power or influence that person has to present it.  Net Neutrality rules enforced as part of a national broadband policy protects your voice, your ideas, and your participation in our democracy.  Some commercial interests seek a net where their voices can travel faster, their partners get preferential treatment, and everyone else risks being throttled, capped, metered, or impeded.

Gordon F. Snyder, Director of the National Center for Information and Communications Technologies

Without Net Neutrality protections, the Internet may find itself resembling broadcasting in this country, where a few powerful interests control the medium, the message, and the content.  No company should be making these choices for you, either through speed throttling or imposing limits or meters on those products and services that aren’t owned, controlled, or partnered with that provider.  Your ISP should not have the right to impose a broadband strategy that is designed to protect the business model of another product or service they happen to offer, such is the case with online video.

Tell the FCC you don’t want to settle for a national broadband policy that doesn’t make America #1.  That means:

• The fastest possible speeds, not rationed “fast enough for most people to check e-mail and web pages broadband.”
• An end to policies that allow providers to artificially limit consumption through throttles, usage caps, and forced metered pricing at enormous markups.
• Protections against manipulating broadband policies to protect providers’ other business interests, such as streaming online video competing with traditional cable television business models.
• Policies that encourage competition among providers, even if it means establishing “common carrier” status to permit competitor access to wired infrastructure under fair terms.
• A policy that recognizes the rapid development of broadband technology and expects providers to grow with the times to accommodate new platforms, technologies, and applications.
• A policy that embraces municipal, public, and/or non-profit organizations that wish to establish advanced networks as they see fit, without having to face lawsuits and delay tactics from commercial interests.
• Recognition that there cannot be two broadband platforms in this country – one slow lane for rural and under-competitive markets and one fast lane for urban areas.  Equal access.  Equal speeds.  Fair pricing.

Gordon F. Snyder, Director of the National Center for Information and Communications Technologies, provides additional insight in his blog, and should be considered when writing your suggestions to the FCC:

On Defining Broadband Capability:

Broadband is defined lots of different ways and the FCC is seeking comment on how the FCC should define broadband capability, including how to take into account the various existing and emerging technologies.

The FCC currently uses the terms advanced telecommunications capability, broadband, and high-speed Internet. Most of us think of broadband as data – high speed data but just data. That’s changing for many of us – we’re in the middle of the migration to all IP networks and I believe voice and video must be included along with data in the new broadband definition. I’d be fine with just calling it just broadband.

We’re also dealing with a wide range of technologies – Fiber To The Home (FTTH), Fiber To The Node (FTTN), WiMAX, LTE, DOCSIS, ADSL, etc. Each of these provides a different range of bandwidths depending on distance, signal strength, etc. I’d like to see specific bandwidth ranges that can be easily adjusted as we ramp up speeds. I also believe we need to define both upstream and downstream bandwidths for these ranges. Here’s the way the FCC started defining bandwidth tiers of service last year:

First Generation data: 200 Kbps up to 768 Kbps
Basic Broadband : 768 Kbps to 1.5 Mbps
1.5 Mbps to 3.0 Mbps
3.0 Mbps to 6.0 Mbps
6.0 Mbps and above

I’d like to see these tiers broken out further and include separate listings for upstream and downstream bandwidths. I’d also like to see average speeds calculated over the course of 24 hour/7 day a week periods be listed. It makes no sense for my provider to list maximum speeds that I can only get at 3 in the morning when all of my neighbors are sleeping.

In addition, these tier levels must be dynamic and adjust up with technology improvements. I hope I’m not still sitting at the 3-6 Mbps tier (in one direction) a year from now.

I don’t believe there should be different definitions or standards for the type of broadband service provided. For example, we don’t need separate definitions for mobile broadband services (e.g. wireless) and fixed broadband services (e.g. cable modem). Bandwidth is bandwidth so keep them all the same.

I also don’t believe rural and other hard to get to areas should have lower tier standards and definitions. We must make every effort to provide equal service to as many people as possible in our country.

On Defining Access:

Broadband capability needs to be everywhere. Prioritizing (for example, saying a library requires more bandwidth per user than a home) makes little sense. We need to make broadband available to everyone.

Competition is key if we want bandwidths from different providers to leapfrog and prices to drop. In Massachusetts we’ve seen fierce competition in the eastern part of the state as Verizon (FiOS) and the cable companies go back and forth with each other. In Western Massachusetts (where I live) FiOS is not available and we are seeing little competition when compared.

Areas where there is only a single provider typically have to wait for long periods of time to see new broadband delivery technologies. More competition in under-served areas is critical areas or these areas will continue to fall further behind. I’d like to see the national broadband plan focus stimulus money on these areas with limited competition and capability.

How should the Commission consider the different qualitative features discussed in the definition of broadband, such as latency, peak download speed, and mobility? We must set these features aggressively and at a level that does not just compete but leads the rest of the world – this must be our goal. The OECD maintains a portal that provides access to a range of broadband-related statistics gathered by the OECD. The OECD has indentified five main categories which are important for assessing broadband markets – Penetration, Usage, Coverage, Prices, and Service & Speeds. For example, fiber is the dominant connection technology in Korea and Japan and now accounts for 48% of all Japanese broadband subscriptions and 43% in Korea. With fiber comes lower latency, higher peak download speeds and (yes) even more mobility.

The FCC also seeks comment on the extent to which access hinges on affordability.  Simply put, it needs to be fast and it needs to be cheap. Referring to the OECD portal again and as an example, on average, subscribers in OECD countries pay 15 times more per advertised megabit of connectivity than Koreans. We must be faster and cheaper than Korea if we want to compete with the rest of the world.

The FCC seeks comment on what it means for a person with disabilities to “have access” to broadband capabilities.  The report references the Assistive Technologies Act of 2004, supporting state efforts to improve provision of assistive technology to individuals with disabilities; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,requiring common carriers to provide telecommunications relay services for deaf and speech-impaired individuals; and the Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets; Petition of American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63, that focuses on adopting hearing aid compatibility requirements for mobile wireless devices.

Higher bandwidths and lower costs per megabit will drive innovation and applications that help and support people with disabilities. That said, assistive technologies must continue to be regulated and ratcheted up as bandwidth and access continues to improve.

I believe residential broadband (to the home) is key in our country. Homes in our broadband equation are the lowest common denominator. Lots of inexpensive and reliable bandwidth to everyone’s home will drive bandwidth up and cost down at work, libraries, public Wi-Fi hotspots, etc. We must set our residential broadband bar higher than the rest of the world in each of the five OECD portal categories.

I highly recommend reviewing Gordon’s insights on the FCC’s broadband policy development because, thus far, I’ve found myself in complete agreement.

Share/Save

Stop the Cap! will shortly launch a new Terms of Service Tracker for the nation’s largest Internet Service Providers.  Born from an idea from the Electronic Freedom Foundation, our new tracker will check several provider websites every day looking for any changes to the content of Subscriber Agreements, Terms & Conditions, and any other legal notices that could impact your broadband Internet service.

Many Internet Service Providers don’t time stamp changes — they simply quietly replace one agreement with another, and too often fail to notify customers about what changed.

Most customer agreements have language that permits them to change their terms on a whim, even if they fundamentally change service descriptions, pricing, and try to sneak in usage caps, tiered pricing, bandwidth throttling, and other anti-consumer provisions.  Worse yet, customers under “price protection” or “term contracts” are often only given 30 days to “opt out” before the new terms automatically apply to their accounts.  Customers learning of changes too late to opt out are often stuck paying hundreds of dollars in early termination fees to escape a company that is no longer acceptable to them.

When a company changes any provision in a Subscriber Agreement, all existing customers should be notified by e-mail and on their bills about any changes, and given ample time to react without penalties or traps.  Until the nation’s ISPs begin to consistently provide that notice, we shall.

We’ll have more details shortly, and anticipate allowing our readers to subscribe to automatic updates, informing them about any changes that could impact their service and their wallets.

Share/Save

I’m a big cable or telephone company and I just caught the smell of broadband stimulus money… hundreds of millions of dollars worth of taxpayer dollars I want for myself and my investors.  Why spend their money when I can spend yours?  Stop the Cap! warned readers that parties with a vested interest in cashing in on taxpayer funds to construct broadband networks would be sniffing around the Broadband Stimulus package looking for their piece.  Broadband Reports, Public Knowledge, and The Wall Street Journal caught a big whiff of telecom trolling for your taxpayer dollars, this time to ostensibly “map” broadband penetration in the United States.

Using a group called Connected Nation, whose board is packed to the rafters with telecom employees and those serving them (including AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon), telecommunications special interests want the contract (worth $300+ million) to complete the national map.  In addition to collecting the nice tidy sum that represents, these companies have a vested interest in keeping broadband looking perky, fast, and available everywhere to forestall regulatory review, municipal broadband initiatives to serve the under served, and hide the fact broadband in the United States is not very competitive, and not very available outside of population centers.

The history of this group has demonstrated it has an interest in keeping specifics to a minimum, and inflating broadband penetration levels into the stratosphere.  As Broadband Reports wrote, a perfect example is in the state of Kentucky.  When independent mapping was completed, it exposed Kentucky had a problem — just 60% of the state had broadband available.  Those low numbers might prompt a review of why incumbent telecom companies are not spending some money to wire their less urban customers for service.  But with the magic of Connect Kentucky, a sort of regional chapter of Connected Nation, that number jumped to 95% in just five years in a study called dubious, if not outright “methodological malpractice” by Consumers Union.

Broadband Reports writes the 95% penetration rate is “hysterical” in their communications with Kentucky residents and Internet Service Providers.  But with a 95% penetration figure, why investigate if there “isn’t a problem?”  Of course, you could always pay us (AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, etc.) to improve those networks, also out of taxpayer funds.

Public Knowledge has its own bone to pick with the organization, claiming it demands to keep data general, and often proprietary:

State governments, working months before the stimulus package was conceived, are ramping up their own programs to map deployment of broadband, and are finding they are already increasingly running into conflicts over the type of data they will receive. Some states want comprehensive, granular data. However, they are finding that the telecommunications industry, often represented by Connected Nation (CN), doesn’t want to give it to them. The result is a clash of policy objectives and politics that’s taking place across the country, in states ranging from North Carolina to Alabama, Colorado and Minnesota. Connected Nation’s board of directors is dominated by representatives of large telecom carriers, as CN positions itself as the best choice for states and the Federal government to spend millions of stimulus dollars on broadband mapping.

In North Carolina, the dispute is being played out in a most public way, as Connected Nation, at the behest of a powerful state legislator, has set up a parallel mapping operation to that of the e-NC Authority, a state agency that has been working since 2001 to bring Internet connectivity to rural areas through mapping and through public-private partnerships with telephone companies. While normally Connected Nation can charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for mapping, it is doing the North Carolina map at no cost to the state after a move by the chairman of e-NC’s board to have that organization pay for part of the industry mapping cost failed.

As with all of its mapping, e-NC depends on information from incumbent providers. Through last year and this there was a struggle more prolonged than usual, and the end result was a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) that greatly restricted what the e-NC maps would be able to show.

Proprietary, non-specific data allows a group to suggest that any speed above dial-up is broadband, and as long as it passes near your neighborhood, you have broadband access (even if you don’t.)  That’s precisely the kind of access pointed to by elected officials like Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) who claim broadband is plentiful and will become more so if the government stays out of it.

To resolve broadband penetration problems, improve competition, and to prevent broadband backwaters served by companies doling out slow, heavily capped access at high prices and calling it a day, truly representative map data must be produced to allow everyone to understand what is currently available at what speeds.  Allowing a group like Connected Nation to swipe taxpayer dollars currently used by state officials for honest assessments is a travesty.  No company or organization with a vested interest in the outcome should ever be allowed to control a study of this importance.  If they do, they’ll find broadband under an anti competitive, slow, and expensive Cap ‘n Tier system is just wonderful for all of us, assuming you even have access to it.

Thanks to Thomas Hawk for the photograph of the fox and “comecloser” for the hen house photo.

Share/Save

Stop the Cap! reader Jeremy received a reply to a communication he sent to his senator, Sam Brownback (R-Kansas).  Brownback has signed on for big telecom’s “nickle, dime, and dollar subscribers” project and thinks it’s great news for an Internet controlled by profit leveraging corporations charging top dollar while promising to expand services later.

Full text of letter from Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) (click to enlarge)

As you may know, several groups have sought legislation to regulate or even prohibit fees that may be sought by broadband companies from content providers for the high-speed transmission of content over the Internet. I believe that this so-called ‘network neutrality’ legislation would be anything but neutral, punishing broadband access providers for innovation and competition.

In fact, it is due to the absence of heavy-handed government regulation that the Internet has grown and innovated freely and rapidly.

Moreover, broadband access providers – our nation’s telephone, cable television, and wireless companies – are spending billions of dollars to deploy broadband, and have plans to spend billions more on the next generation of broadband networks.

These investments include new technologies that will greatly improve everyone’s Internet experience, further empowering our ability to use it for entertainment, political, religious, and educational purposes. Given the investment by broadband providers in creating and maintaining Internet infrastructure, it is reasonable for them to request that content providers pay their fair share for the services they use.

Brownback is confusing the broader argument about Net Neutrality, allowing data equal access on a network, regardless of its source, affiliation, or potential competitiveness with a provider’s own products and services, with the bandwidth Cap ‘n Tier problem Jeremy wrote about.  But Net Neutrality and Cap ‘n Tier are effectively kissing cousins: they go hand in hand.  As we’ve seen in Time Warner Cable’s Subscriber Agreement, they exclude their own Digital Phone product from Cap ‘n Tier while subjecting other competitors to it, if/when implemented.  They also reserve the right to throttle speeds, limit consumption, or impose overlimit fees for exceeding usage allowances.

Sen. Brownback (R-Kansas)

We’ve also seen a direct link between the growth of online video, the cable industry’s concern they will lose cable TV subscriptions to online free video, and attempts to charge higher prices and/or limit use of the net as a way to address the online video “problem.”  Scaring subscribers away from watching online video without fear of overlimit fees is a fine way to “keep the lid on.”

What America has come to discover in the last year is that free market competition is fine, but the absence of common sense oversight and regulation means runaway profiteering and customer abuse, often in markets that lack competitive choice on equal terms.

Brownback may also not realize that cable companies often have an ownership interest in the content producers, and they have a vested interest in retaining control over that content. Unlike content producers like Hulu, who do not charge any fees to access their content, the broadband provider itself does, raking in billions in profits using today’s broadband model.  Consumption based billing with paltry tiers of service simply guarantees a Money Party of even higher profits, leaving consumers with unaffordable broadband, limited access to innovative online content, and vague, potentially empty promises to perform those revolutionary upgrades Brownback writes about, ‘sometime later.’

Brownback, despite events in the news showing telecom companies throwing rural customers under the bus (Verizon in particular), still believes the only way rural Kansans will obtain broadband is letting the providers do whatever they want:

We must keep the Internet free of unnecessary government regulations.  Our current approach of allowing market forces to operate has benefitted all Americans with rapid broadband deployment, and Internet speeds that were unimaginable just several years ago.  The Congress and the Federal Communications Commission should not harm progress by allowing the government, rather than the competitive market, to choose business models.  Keeping the Internet free of the heavy-hand of government promotes innovation and broadband deployment by giving our nation’s cable, telephone, and satellite companies much needed flexibility to invest in their networks and meet the demands of consumers.  It is this approach that will bring broadband to rural communities and will ensure that all Americans have the best online experience possible.

Kansas is hardly the cutting edge of America’s broadband.  In Brownback’s own state, broadband backwaters are common with very slow speeds, heavily capped and expensive providers like Sunflower in Lawrence, or an attitude in most of the state’s cities that “this is good enough, they don’t need more.”  Large swaths of the state remain stuck with dial-up.  If this is the broadband celebration Brownback is throwing for his own constituents, voters should just remember he spends most of his time in Washington, which does fine online, with several competitive choices and very fast speeds.

Perhaps at the next election, should he not revise his position, voters may want to see to it that Sen. Brownback spends a lot more time at home in Kansas with 1.5Mbps DSL for $44 a month, and find someone else to represent their interests.

Share/Save

I have had a few reports that something on the site is causing a few browser crashes for Safari users, and I am trying to track down what it might be.  If you are experiencing a browser crash while visiting this site, please let me know on our Contact Form, especially including what you were doing at the time your browser crashed (loading the front page, viewing a video, etc.)  I will continue to track it down by switching a few articles on and off until I find where the problem is.  Some features may appear and disappear temporarily as I explore this.

If you are a participant in a comment thread and your e-mail box is being inundated with updates to that thread, you can turn that notification feature off by browsing to the very bottom of the comments, where you will discover subscription management options to turn on/off those notifications.

A reminder that personal attacks and generic hate speech should be avoided in the comments section.  Offenders will find their comments deleted. If you find an offending comment, you can report it on the Contact Form.

Finally, remember that many articles are posted here in summary form, especially those with embedded videos.  You can click on the link to “…Continue Reading” to see the rest of the contents.  We use summaries to reduce page loading time, not to hide less relevant information.  You are always encouraged to read articles in their entirety.

Our About Us page has been slightly revised to include our mailing address.

UPDATE 6/2: I believe I have tracked the browser crash issue in Safari to the introduction of our new Flash video player.  It may throw an error message your way, but it should no longer crash your browser.  Please continue to report any errors you see.  You can append them as a comment.  I am going to try and make changes to the Flash player to fix this.  If you cannot play the videos, please let me know, and also check to make sure you are running the latest version of Flash.

Share/Save

Relax today because the work begins again tomorrow.

Starting this week, we will begin some carefully coordinated pushback against Time Warner Cable’s changes to their Subscriber Agreement, because despite company claims that they’ve not implemented any Cap ‘n Tier system at this time, the writing is on the wall in 1000pt type, readable from space.  No company changes their legalese “just because,” and CEO Glenn Britt’s public statements late last week make it patently obvious which way this road is heading.

Here are the things YOU need to do today so you are prepared to act when we need you:

1. Bookmark this site and check it daily.  A Call to Action is most effective when everyone starts moving on it around the same time.  It’s less helpful to arrive here a week after the fact.  Everytime an article is posted here, our Twitter channel sends out a tweet.  You can follow us on Twitter from the stopthecap channel.  Just insert the text stopthecap in the box on that link and you’ll find us.  I am still working on finding a good e-mail notification system that will let you subscribe and be notified in e-mail when new items are published.
2. You will be asked to write, phone, and e-mail elected officials.  In all such communications, remember the three P’s rule: Be polite. Be persistent.  Be persuasive. I will, when time allows, provide you with sample letters or talking points to use.  Elected officials are wise to pre-formatted, automated contact campaigns, so I do not use them here.  You will always be expected to communicate in your own words, because elected officials will pay attention to those.  They toss out those online petitions, automated pre-written letters, and other communications that look automated.  It will literally take less than five minutes to follow through on most Calls to Action.  If you leave it to someone else, and they leave it to you, nobody picks up the phone or writes the letter.
3. Get educated.  A great deal of information and background material is already here.  You can follow specific company actions, cities, or policies from the menu options along the top of the screen, as well as in the search box.  If you have a question about an article, write it in the comment section.  I try and read and reply to many of them, along with others here.
4. Continue to pass along news tips, suggestions, or other pertinent material through our Contact form.  I try and credit people as often as possible, and some story ideas may appear later on, so don’t be discouraged if yours doesn’t turn up as an article in short order.
5. If you find value in what we do, consider making a contribution.  I am going to begin crediting our contributors (first names by default) here to thank them.  Your contributions pay for server expenses, a post office box, software expenses (this WordPress theme for example), and will also go towards mailing and printing expenses as we start educating elected officials on our issues.  Telecom companies just spent nearly a half million dollars in North Carolina alone to stop municipal broadband there through campaign contributions.  We have to rely on actual facts and a substantially lower budget to fight back!

Share/Save

'If you give us exactly what we want, we might wire your town with fiber optics. If not, there is always Wisconsin.'

The Trojan Horse of the 2000′s apparently comes in the form of spools of fiber optic cable.  Verizon assumes the attractive notion of FiOS, fiber to the home for broadband, telephone, and video programming, is worth sacrificing local oversight.  The company has made it known it does not enjoy what they consider a cumbersome franchising application procedure in Massachusetts.  In a public relations push, Verizon has suggested that giving them quicker approval will guarantee state residents the golden promise of fiber optics.  If the company doesn’t get what it wants, maybe Wisconsin or another state where Verizon is deploying FiOS will:

Ellen M. Cummings, a spokeswoman for Verizon, said that with the struggling economy, the company has to choose where to commit its financial resources. Therefore, it is looking for the quickest return on its investment.

“Here in Massachusetts, it puts us in a predicament. If the company is trying to decide how to deploy money, and Massachusetts is vying against other states, like Wisconsin, where the wait is as little as five days, it definitely puts Massachusetts at a disadvantage,” she said.

Every wired provider is subject to local community licensing, in the form of a franchise, which permits companies to string wires through towns and cities, on poles as well as underground, in return for oversight and a small piece of the action.  Local governments justify franchising to regulate companies tearing up local streets and neighborhoods to maintain their networks, as well as making sure that all citizens within a community are served equitably and that the community benefits from the service.

The cable industry has lived under the franchise system since its inception.

Verizon decided it can’t be bothered dealing with individual municipalities in Massachusetts, and last year tried,  but failed, to replace the local franchising system with a single statewide franchise.  This year they’ve returned with a Verizon-friendly bill that would dramatically tip the scales in their favor, limiting local oversight and reducing their public service commitments.

The companion bills, (S. 1531) by Sen. Steven Panagiotakos of Lowell in the Senate, and House bill (H. 3765) by Rep. Michael Rodrigues of Westport, would mandate that each municipality limit consideration of Verizon’s franchise applications to no more than 90 days, and opens up a number of loopholes that Verizon could use to do an end run around a community and run the clock out, assuring quick approval without making concessions.

At worst, a provision in the bill setting a strict 90 day window for consideration of a franchise application, even if incomplete, ties the hands of municipalities.  Language that restricts the right of municipalities to deny applications gives the upper hand to Verizon, and the back of the hand to consumers.

One of the most common promises local communities extract from any wired provider is a guarantee they will establish wiring policies to equitably reach people throughout the franchise area, not simply the wealthiest neighborhoods, or easiest to wire.  While it has never been practical to insist on 100% wiring coverage, particularly in more isolated, rural communities, most franchise agreements insist on a uniform policy that says if there are a certain number of homes within an area, it must be wired.  Without that assurance, prior experience has shown operators would often “redline” communities, wiring prosperous streets while ignoring others.  Municipalities in Massachusetts want to guarantee that Verizon doesn’t engage in that kind of behavior, particularly after witnessing the company jettisoning “undesirable” customers in three nearby states — Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, which were sold off to FairPoint Communications.  No FiOS for them.

In general, more competition is good news, especially when Verizon comes to town with FiOS, which is sure to give the incumbent cable operator a real headache.  But Verizon’s complaints ring a little hollow when considering the company has managed to already obtain franchises in 93 communities across the state, and is literally obtaining new agreements faster than wiring crews can get into communities and start the upgrades.  While there may be a few towns that drag their feet for a variety of reasons, customer demand for FiOS is sure to light fires under elected officials to get a move on.  Doing it fast is not necessarily the same as doing it right.  As our readers are coming to learn, promises made by telecom providers that at first glance sound consumer-friendly turn out to be anything but.

One more reason to believe that:  the state’s incumbent cable operators are also opposing the bills, claiming they extend special benefits to Verizon that they, themselves, have never received. Cable companies on the same side as municipalities on questions of competition?  Of course most of the state’s cable operators are already past the franchising process, and merely return every decade or so for perfunctory rubber-stamp renewals, so green-lighting Verizon’s proposed bills would only expose them to FiOS competition sooner.

Paul R. Cianelli, the president of the New England Cable and Telecommunications Association, which represents the cable companies Comcast, Charter Communications, Time Warner and Cox, but not Verizon, said, “We oppose this legislation.”

“It’s another attempt by Verizon to get a special deal. They are pushing for legislation that would give them an advantage over existing cable providers. And they are attempting to chip away at the authority and powers of the municipalities to grant franchises,” he said.

In the end, we believe Ellen Cummings at Verizon who said it best: “[Verizon] is looking for the quickest return on its investment.”  Unfortunately, that’s not always compatible with the best interests of consumers.

Share/Save

We have continued to make some adjustments to our new theme to accommodate readers and believe we have swatted most of the bugs, particularly those related to images and buttons not functioning properly on certain browsers.  We have also made some changes to help make the site look better for those using lower resolution settings.  Even most netbooks should be seeing some improvement.  We still have work to do on the mobile browsing side, and will be working on that behind the scenes during this week.

I believe the two column format is an improvement for Stop the Cap! and my writing style, so we will be sticking with it going forward.

Readers will notice the right column contains a new “donate” button.  I have been considering how to help defray the expenses of maintaining this site, and what expenses we are likely to have going forward, especially when the Cap ‘n Tier issue rears its ugly head once again.  I intend to begin preparing information for elected officials I can share with them offline, and build our infrastructure and organization to more effectively reach out to affected communities.  That takes some money, which I am spending out of pocket myself at the moment.  If you feel comfortable in helping to defray these kinds of expenses, you can use the donate link which will connect you through Paypal to a donation processing page where you can securely use a credit or debit card.  I will be updating our contact page this week as well with our contact details so one can contribute by mail as well.

The alternative was advertising, and while I don’t have a problem with programs like Google Adsense which don’t pollute the page with all sorts of screen junk, the fact is, I know for certain the contextual advertising programs would throw ads at you for Internet service providers, many on our “naughty list.”  There is no way I am going to promote any provider that is engaged in anti-consumer behavior.  I think it’s important for us to maintain credibility and integrity.  We are an all-consumer group, with no industry or political ties.  Anything that could color or shade that perception is a detriment to our goals.  Therefore, voluntary contributions seems to be the way to go for now.

The “cap” issue has been quiet for the last week or so, and the quantity of new content has dropped a bit here, but that does not mean the issue is at all dead.  I have been working on several projects behind the scenes and laying some additional groundwork to prepare us for the battles to come.  You will see a number of articles coming here which, at first glance, may seem to be slightly off point.  But trust me when I say they are not.  A lot of things written here will connect right back to our issues, and it has been effective to be able to explain to an elected official that we’ve got a track record of following these issues that we can later connect the dots on.

Starting this week, you will see a considerable amount of attention on two issues:

1. The debacle of FairPoint Communications, an independent telephone company that took over telephone/broadband service for a large part of rural New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine from Verizon.  They botched it, and are now receiving their own bailout.  FairPoint is a private company that promised wonderful things for a captive population in the upper northeast, and they’ve alienated three states.  The anti-municipal network crowd whines about taxpayer money going to what “should be” a private marketplace.  As we bring you the whole sordid story, we’ll show you why the private sector should never be given a monopoly or a free reign in an uncompetitive marketplace, especially in rural America. Many lessons may also apply to other Verizon customers about to become Frontier customers.
2. Following the money.  Jay Ovittore is following who got what for what in North Carolina.  This is a lesson every reader here will find easy to learn.  When an elected official suddenly takes an active interest in proposing or supporting legislation against the best interests of voters, there is always a reason for it.  More often than not, that reason comes in the form of a check with a lot of zeros on it.  On our issues, for too long, names have not been named and elected officials have gotten away with it because they figured the voters back home wouldn’t find out.  Those days are over.  We will name names, list amounts, and remind voters come election time who did the right thing, and who didn’t. There are good Republicans, Democrats, and independents on our issues, and there are bad Republicans, Democrats, and independents.  Political parties make no difference — voting records do.

Municipal networks and broadband remains a powerful response for any municipality facing an abusive telephone or cable provider.  That’s why we support them.  Since the majority of them aren’t interested in the game of Cap ‘n Tier for big profits, they are a solution for capped broadband.

Finally, there are a few other story tips we’ve gotten in e-mail that we are also following.  If you are interested in writing something for Stop the Cap! please use the contact form and volunteer.  We welcome new authors here!

Have a great week.

Share/Save

One of the biggest anti-consumer disasters of the last 15 years was President Clinton’s signing of the 1996 Communications Act.  This bought and paid for legislation deregulated a major part of the telecommunications sector with the idea that the “free market” would somehow provide sufficient checks and balances to protect against media concentration, monopoly abuse, and locking out technological advancement wherever robust competition was unlikely.

How’s that working out for you?

Consolidation and corporate control of broadcasting, telephony, broadband, and other communications services has been rampant and largely unchecked by the Federal Communications Commission during the last 10+ years.  The result is a handful of players controlling the services we all depend on in our daily lives.  Usage caps and overpriced tiered billing is just the latest example of market concentration.  Companies realize consumers have few options for equivalent services, so they can dictate the terms and conditions with almost no oversight or control.  Local and state governments confronting this issue have come to realize their hands are tied, because telecommunications deregulation without assurances of a competitive marketplace always equal monopolistic behavior.

Net neutrality has also been a victim of a hands-off regulatory authority that is supposed to foster competition, equity in access, and prohibit abusive behavior.  The Federal Communications Commission has failed on every front.

The Obama Administration is preparing to fund initiatives to secure America’s broadband future at a time when this country has fallen well behind others in the world in affordable access, fast speeds, and no draconian usage capping.  Lobbyists for big telecommunications companies are already contemplating just how big their piece of the pie should be.  Many of the same astroturfing groups outraged about municipal broadband networks are oddly quiet about the multi-billion dollar potential transfer of taxpayer dollars to these private corporations to “enhance broadband service” in underserved areas of the country.

Obviously, most of these corporations that will  seek taxpayer funds are already advocating for as few limitations on how those funds are spent as possible.

It’s time for consumers to speak up about how their taxpayer dollars are going to be spent on broadband development.  Many of the original goals for broadband stimulus spending are honorable — getting broadband access into rural and suburban communities that are ignored by private providers, enhancing the quality of those networks to provide modern speeds and a platform for future enhancements, and finding ways to get access into disadvantaged communities.

However, there is also a serious risk that millions upon millions of dollars could be flushed down rat holes or wasted by parties that don’t need the money.  As with any major pot of money, an entire industry of industry lobbyists and consultants will pour over the terms and conditions for obtaining a piece of that money pot, and every interest you can imagine will be tailor-writing grant applications to cash in.  Some will be for valuable projects to expand broadband access.  Others, however, will be for useless “studies” done by groups that live on the money spent to conduct the study,  “demonstration projects” that exist solely because money for them is available, and politically-connected funding designed to gain favor from constituents.  Some private companies will seek government funds to embark on projects they might have funded with private dollars before the “money pot” became available.

One need only look at the colossal waste and abuse of the FCC-mandated Universal Service Fund telephone customers are forced to pay every month.  Billions of dollars have ended up going for anything but providing guaranteed telephone access for the nation’s most rural residents.  The USF has funded projects in Beverly Hills, California and suburban Washington, DC, hardly poverty stricken or rural.  Just last month, the Memphis school district managed to rack up $622,733 in mobile phone bills for more than 1,000 mobile phones handed out to district staff members, paid for from USF funds.  They used to the phones to call psychic hotlines, sex chat lines, order ring tones, and run up personal long distance calls to friends and family members.  Memphis isn’t exactly a rural community, either.

Consumers can get involved to make sure these funds are spent wisely.  We need to insist that they not be given to any group that does not have a concrete, shovel-ready project to begin the infrastructure development we need to get America’s broadband network at a level at least competitive with the Republic of Korea.  Here are the requirements you should be insisting from Congress:

1. Providers receiving funds must construct a network capable of providing broadband speeds at least at the 5Mbps rate, with the capacity to expand and grow those speeds in the future;
2. Providers must agree not to impose usage caps or limits based on consumption if they are receiving public dollars to help defray bandwidth expenses.  Reasonable speed based tier pricing is acceptable;
3. Providers must agree to build their networks to urban, suburban, and rural communities within their service area, reaching all areas within a reasonable, date-certain time frame.
4. Providers must agree to the principles of net neutrality, providing open and equal access to all Internet services (excepting those prohibited by law) without throttling, blocking, or limits.
5. Funds must be used exclusively for approved projects and accounted for appropriately.
6. The ultimate goal of the project must be to promote competition and prohibit any limitations on competition from any sector willing/able to provide it, public or private.
7. Where competition does not exist, appropriate government oversight and/or regulation to provide for consumer protection from abusive business practices must be included.

Stop the Cap! sees broadband stimulus funding as a potential solution to consumers in rural areas already living under draconian usage caps, slow speeds, and service limitations.  Rural communities should not be penalized with 20th century access, particularly when a significant amount of government-mandated funding from you and I already goes to these rural providers, often telephone companies.

Share/Save

While the vast majority of comments have welcomed the new theme we’ve adopted here, I have heard from a handful who are having problems with the theme or layout.  Upon further investigation, I have uncovered most fall into one of these categories:

• Internet Explorer 6.  You -must- upgrade your browser.  Internet Explorer 6 is no longer supported and represents a serious security risk in today’s online world of browser exploits and malware.  I wouldn’t feel safe using IE6 to do any secure tasks these days.  Functionally, there are several features here which will not work with this browser properly.  If you are using this browser, you will see a security warning at the top of your screen prompting you to update effective today.  You don’t need to rely on Microsoft’s Internet Explorer.  In truth, the majority of our visitors here access this site using Firefox, Mac users prefer Safari (and there is a Windows version available as well).  I use Firefox myself.  It’s free and will import all of your bookmarks, so it’s painless.  You’ll also enjoy a lot of the new features and faster browsing.  The truth is, a lot of web pages are going to look strange using IE6, not just ours, and that will increasingly be the case as more and more sites drop support for this ancient browser version.  At the very least, if you like Internet Explorer, upgrade to at least version 7.  You’ll find it on the IE update page referenced above in the lower right corner.
• Screen Size.  If you are running at less than 1024×768 screen resolution, things are probably looking mighty squished.  I understand this, and the “busy-ness” it creates.  I have been waiting for the theme author to release his next update which will fix some of this.  In the meantime, I think the best choice for us will be to try switching to a two-column format.  You’ll see the articles appearing in 66% of the space, with the right side column containing the featured articles, recent comments, and some other stuff.  I have temporarily disabled some of the items that were in the center column to give people more white space.  Tonight, we’ll try expanding the layout.  However, as the vast majority of our visitors here arrive using a minimum of 1024×768 resolution, that will be the minimum resolution that I will be developing this site to work best with.
• Mobile Browsers & Netbooks: I am testing some plug-ins and add-ons to greatly improve options for those using these devices.  Hang in there.

I also strongly urge people who want to participate in our comments to register for an account here so they aren’t bothered with having to enter their name and e-mail address each time they want to leave a comment.  It literally takes seconds, because we don’t have a bloated sign-up procedure.  Your temporary password will be e-mailed to you (and after that you can change it), so make sure you use a valid e-mail address.

Share/Save

We are working on the comments editor bug reported over the weekend, which allows some Firefox users to find their comment text spilling beyond the right margin of the editor.  I am not seeing this happen myself, and I use Firefox, but we’ll be double checking the code.

The About Us section here has been completely redone.  It contains a list of our team members, a revised Mission Statement, and our new Privacy Policy.  It’s part of my effort to overhaul the information that I haven’t had time to work on since April.  The alternative provider section will be the nightmare.  I really need help from folks outside of Rochester to help me develop appropriate information for other cities.  It is far easier for me if you are willing to work within our own online editor to develop this instead of sending me a lot of text in e-mail.  The editor is very simple to work with.  All you need is a registered account here and I can extend editor access to you.

The cities drop-down menu was not designed to be “comprehensive” going-forward.  Over time, if/when additional cities become hotbeds of capping, that format will be reconsidered.

Jay Ovittore is our first Issues Coordinator, for North Carolina.  We seriously need additional coordinators, especially for Texas which is a hotbed of capping.  The requirements are simply your willingness to develop content for Stop the Cap! and to be enthusiastic and engaged in fighting back.  We can use multiple coordinators in Texas because of the various cities involved.  Use the contact form if you are interested.

There are a few additional side projects I am also working on, particularly for e-mail notification of new content/calls to action and mobile access issues.

Keep an eye out for more new things, and some adjustments to our look going forward.

Share/Save

After a considerable amount of research, testing, and work, welcome to the new look of Stop the Cap!

Our old theme, Tarski, served us well for nearly a year.  However, it was obviously developed for lighter traffic websites where content didn’t get blown off the front page within 24-48 hours.  Since this issue exploded on April 1st as Time Warner Cable expanded its ludicrous Internet rationing plan, the fast pace here simply became untenable for our readers.  Most people don’t read beyond page two of a website, much less hunt around for articles written two or three weeks earlier.

This new theme allows our editors to keep important issues front and center so readers can obtain information that is still very relevant, but was written a short time ago.

You will also find an increasing number of articles that only display the first paragraph or two, followed by …Continue Reading.  This is to reduce page load time and let you scroll through articles more quickly.  Very important information is often contained “below the jump,” so I strongly encourage you to click on the “Continue Reading” option as often as possible.

Here are some highlights:

• The horizontal menu bar below our heading offers several categories and topics to explore.  Some have drop-down menus that let the reader drill down for specific content, others bring readers all of the articles published here on a particular subject.  Cities tracks issues and developments in each hot spot where capping and consumption tiering has broken out.  Events gives you a rundown of upcoming activities (or prior ones) Stop the Cap! is working on, from public protests to legislative hearings you can attend.  Issues is the meat and potatoes section of our site, identifying important stories in the news.  Multimedia brings you audio and video clips and events.  Providers explores what Internet Service Providers are up to.  On the right side of the bar are a variety of information pages that are under reconstruction and reorganization at the moment.  The Subscribe button lets you access our RSS feed.  We are also planning an e-mail digest/notification system because RSS seems to be falling out of favor.
• The four images beneath the horizontal bar are currently showing night skylines from four of the cities recently impacted by the Time Warner Cable “experiment.”  These images will be changing regularly to highlight important developments, issues, and projects that deserve special focus here.  If you hover your mouse over them, text content will appear, with a clickable link to additional information.  This is not yet functional.
• The left side column will be the home of most of our content, with 10 articles per page.  Right above those articles, a Breaking News box may display late-breaking stories or important Calls to Action deserving your special attention.  The box below each headline will contain a byline, date of publication (and soon time I hope), the categories that apply, and the number of reader comments, if any.
• The middle column currently contains: Recent Headlines, stories selected by our editors for their importance or reader interest, Recent Comments, which display the latest reader input we’ve received, and Popular Content, which consists of articles getting the most reader commentary.  The order of these will be adjusted shortly, with Recent Comments going on top.
• The right column features a Search This Site box, where you can type keywords to locate a specific article, Content Tags, which give you a sense of how frequently a topic is covered here, a Blogroll of links to related websites, and Your Account, for account registration and sign-in/out.  Registering for an account takes seconds and makes submitting comments a lot easier.

It is important to note there have been some visual changes in this theme.  Linked content that you can click on now appears like this here.  The fonts have been changed.  Article headlines are in a sans-serif font which usually will present as Arial.  Article text will now appear in a serif font, typically Georgia.  Quoted text within the body of an article should be easier to read than it was under our old theme.  Please let me know if you experience any problems seeing fonts, reading the text, or any similar anomalies.

Here are the known bugs and problems we are working on:

The theme here is new, and there are some known bugs and issues we are already aware of and are working to resolve.  As they are repaired, the will be stricken from the list.

• Embedded videos from Dailymotion are too big for the column space they are given, and barge into adjacent columns and content.  I will be working to resize these videos over the weekend to get them displayed properly.
• There are some minor formatting problems with thumbnail images and how they present here.  I’ve already avoided using them in places where their presence would be immediately apparent.
• The comment editor does not appear just below the comment you are replying to at this time. Remember, you can reply to the article -and- to individual comments left by others.  You can also edit your comments to correct any grammar problems you missed the first time.  Those with registered accounts here no longer have a time limit to edit their remarks, for your convenience.
• The site is designed to render properly on most browsers and screen sizes, but has problems with Internet Explorer v6.0 in particular.  Mobile browsing is not currently supported, but may be in the future.

What is planned for the future:

• E-mail notification of new comments left on the articles you participate in, as well as a subscription digest/alert to remind you new articles are available. [After commenting, you can now be notified of new replies!]
• Paypal link to allow readers to contribute to help defray server expenses and software costs.
• Various minor fixes and adjustments based on your input.

Please feel free to share your comments, impressions, and suggestions in the Comments section of this article.  I hope this theme change will prove helpful in the days ahead as we continue our fight.

Phillip M. Dampier
Editor, Stop the Cap!

Share/Save

We have begun the transition to our new theme and look.  Over the course of this evening, you will find the site appearing dramatically different.  Not everything will function as the transition occurs, because a lot of manual changes will need to be made to certain features.  In particular, options across the top horizontal bar will probably not be completely functional/look right until the end of the weekend.  Embedded videos will also present a problem until I manually complete re-sizing them to work within the new layout.

You may need to refresh the page and/or empty your browser cache if you find part so the site conflicting with other parts.

There are a few known bugs in the theme, and they are being worked on.  We’ll be tinkering with the site over the coming days to handle them, and anything else that might occur.

Thanks for your patience.

Share/Save

This really reminds me of 1990.  Back then, a few bad actors in the cable industry were acting so naughty, they created a groundswell of support for legislative action against the cable industry as a whole.  At the beginning of the 1990s, it was sky high rate increases, poor service, and trying to deny competitors access to cable programming networks.  The level of arrogance among the cable companies reached a high point when, then Senator Al Gore (D-TN), called the industry as a “cable cosa nostra.”  We were in the thick of it back then, working to get passage of S.12, a bill to re regulate cable which passed in 1992.

In 2009, some of the same winds are blowing.  The industry is attempting to “test” pricing for broadband that either rations Internet usage, or extorts an enormous amount of money for it.  Industry leaders promise upgrades in return for rate hikes to customers, and then tell their own investors those upgrades are not immediately necessary.  They use inconsistent arguments, bought-and-paid-for research, and clueless legislators who are duped (or bought) to carry their legislative agenda.

It always takes just a few issues, usually coming in sequence, to turn a minor skirmish into a major war, and I think we’re one or two issues away from a full court press to force dramatic changes in the cable and telephone industry.  So far, the issues which are coalescing include:

• Net neutrality, which protects against strong arm tactics by industry players seeking to become the gatekeepers of broadband service delivery;
• Leveraging monopoly power to protect from investing in aging networks, particularly in small and medium sized towns and cities;
• Looking for ways to limit consumption or extract massive additional profits from broadband divisions, particularly in areas where equivalent competition does not exist;
• Imposing legislative measures to limit or control potential competition;
• Continuing to impose rate increases well above the inflation rate.

Back in 1990, some municipalities were fighting back by constructing their own wireless cable, satellite, and wired delivery systems for cable programming.  They were fought every step of the way in much the same way the industry seeks to limit broadband competition today.  Some cable operators now seek to impose control over online video, denying it to non-video subscribers in the same way small satellite dish services in the late 1980s and early 1990s were denied access to cable programming networks outright, or charged extortionist pricing for them.

At the time, most of the consumer pushback came from home satellite dishowners who owned those mammoth satellite dishes, especially in rural areas.  That was how I originally became involved in the fight.  Back then, we didn’t have easy access to the Internet to organize, so we relied on a satellite radio station – KSAT from Gilroy, California, which aired a variety of activist talk radio programs devoted to fighting back against big cable company abuses.  The Internet has definitely made things easier, both to research and expose industry bias, financial incentives given to lawmakers, and for organizing legislative calls to action and protests.

So it seems we’re coming full circle.  Once again, there are some very bad actors who are not listening to customers and are making assumptions that they can simply impose terms and conditions on subscribers and expect them to live with it.  Not if you and I have anything to say about it.

So here is what is coming next:

People keep writing and asking what’s up with Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) and his legislation to ban capped Internet.  Congressman Massa has stayed very dedicated to this issue and in no way has backed off.  He has already shown a remarkable commitment to his constituents here in upstate New York, and his willingness to protect consumers all over this country from gouging caps and tiers.  He is the most impressive freshman congressman I have ever known, and it was an honor to help fight to get him elected to serve here in western New York.  He’s simply indefatigable and tenacious, and he’ll demonstrate that once again very, very soon.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has announced he is going to begin leading a new fight to preserve net neutrality.  Wyden has come to recognize that allowing a free market for broadband also depends on those players in that market playing fairly, and it has become obvious they are not.

“I think there are storm clouds ahead that could close the doors of [the technology] marketplace to future innovation,” said Wyden, an Oregon Democrat. “The continued growth of the Internet right now is being hampered by the lack of clear, enforceable standards on net neutrality. I don’t think the country can afford that in these kinds of difficult economic times.”

And one of the ways growth gets hampered is when cable companies impose unjust caps and tiered pricing on broadband consumption, all while remaining profitable and unwilling to maintain an appropriate level of investment in their networks.  PC World has more:

Wyden and other backers of net neutrality rules say there need to be stronger policies against broadband providers blocking or slowing Web content from competitors of themselves or their partners.

Wyden’s call for stronger rules bucks the status quo in which the FCC has taken enforcement action against two broadband providers for violations of its Internet policy statement, saying broadband consumers should have the right to access any legal Web content and attach any legal devices to the network. Most recently, the FCC in mid-2008 prohibited Comcast from slowing peer-to-peer traffic in an effort to manage network congestion.

Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission has repeatedly shown timidity when dealing with broadband bad actors, looking instead to Congress for legislative action on this matter.  That’s fine with us.  If it literally takes legislation to force private networks to open their wires to competition and making them into “common carriers,” so be it.  No community, by the basis of its size, economic merit, or competitive situation should be exploitable in a way that denies its citizens the kind of advanced, affordable broadband services they deserve in a changing world.

It’s clear we must also begin to be stronger advocates for municipal broadband solutions where appropriate.  We’ve seen the results.  Intransigent providers unwilling to provide needed upgrades or control price increases suddenly rush to improve service and pricing when confronted with the reality of competition.  We’ve already seen that in Lafayette, Louisiana and with your help, the good people in many parts of North Carolina will also soon enjoy the fruits of our labor.

As one of our readers pointed out, with public broadband, if you don’t like the service or the terms, you can literally vote out the people running the provider.  That’s better than just voting with your feet to find, if you’re lucky, an equal competitor.

The cable and telephone industry drumbeat is to impose consumption-based/metered-billing because “it’s inevitable.”  It doesn’t have to be if customers realize all that really represents is a massive money party for them, not cheaper access for us.  As I’ve repeatedly said, when has your cable bill ever gone down?  It’s not going to go down because of these initiatives.  It’s just laying the groundwork for the same kind of spiraling rate increases you already see for your video services.

North Carolina week for StoptheCap! has just demonstrated once again the real Power of You.  Without your help, our second victory in 30 days would not have been possible.  The fight is long from over, however.  Now is the time to stay engaged and vigilant.

To help facilitate that, I am very pleased to announce StoptheCap! is about to have a major overhaul in our design.  In the next day or so, we’ll be unveiling a new format I’m sure will make finding things a lot easier, as well as helping our non-daily visitors instantly find what work needs to be done and how to do it.  You will also find a Paypal button, should you wish to help us defray the mounting expenses we’ve been piling up since the fight began.  Littering the site with advertising seems counterproductive, and would possibly blur the reality that this site has been created and is run by consumers, for consumers.  There is zero industry money here, zero political money here, and zero hidden agenda.  There is no money party here, not even for a bag of those Cheetos bloggers are supposed to be eating all the time.

Thanks for being a loyal reader.  If you haven’t commented before or written anything here before, why not take a minute and say something.  The industry players we are fighting back are here to read this site every morning.  Why not take a minute and say hello to them.

Share/Save

[Editor's Note: Our current software does not require users to confirm their e-mail address before submitting comments on this site, although the individual purporting to be Rep. Ty Harrell did use a correct e-mail address for the representative.  On the chance that the comments expressed on this site are from the representative, our reply should be taken with that understanding.]

Someone signing their name Rep. Ty Harrell and using his e-mail address left the following general comment on two articles on our site regarding the North Carolina legislation HB 1252, which is essentially a custom written bill by and for the cable and telephone industry in an effort to impede municipal broadband network development inside the state.  Today, the legislation will be taken up by the Public Utilities Committee for review.  StoptheCap! is calling on all North Carolina citizens to do their best to attend this meeting and be prepared to protest this legislation in the strongest possible terms, and demand that representatives vote “no” on it.  At this time, only telephone calls should be made to your elected representatives.  It’s too late for e-mail.  This is the link for information about the group assembling for today’s Committee meeting in Raleigh.  Here is information about the earlier Call to Action.

Ty Harrell on May 5, 2009 at 11:19 pm

The only thing I have asked you and others to do is trust me. As hard as it may seem, this entire bill has more to it than meets the eye. Hopefully, you’ll hear what happens with the bill tomorrow in the Public Utilities Committee.

Many thanks for your attention and consideration.

Best wishes,
Ty

Rep. Harrell, with the assumption we are reaching you personally and not someone using your name, let us reiterate that while we appreciate your consideration of our views, it is simply imperative for you to understand in no uncertain terms that the cable and telephone industry and their lobbyists are among the craftiest people around.  I’ve followed this industry for more than 20 years, and their abilities continue to impress me.  I assure you that unless you have an equal amount of experience in dealing with them, you are not going to outsmart them.  They will outsmart you in ways you may not yet understand.  The only acceptable course of action that will restore our faith in your representation of the good people of North Carolina is a withdrawal of this legislation from any further consideration.  It cannot be amended in any way that will not signal a victory for the telecom lobbies who are doing everything possible to stall, impede, or prevent municipal competition.  We would like to think this entire endeavor was a mistake, a misunderstanding, or simply a case of getting into the hornet’s nest you noted in some earlier statements.  It’s always better not to be stung any further.  Do the right thing.

If you would like to learn more about the impact of municipal broadband in small and medium sized communities across America, and how commercial providers respond to it, there is no better and more timely example that Lafayette, Louisiana.  They fought with big telco and cable companies for more than five years to construct a broadband fiber network.  They finally won, and so will the people of Lafayette, who will benefit from the most advanced broadband platform in the state.  Their pricing?  10Mbps down/10Mbps up – $28.94, 20Mbps/20Mbps – $44.95, and 50Mbps/50Mbps – $57.95 a month!

What is the incumbent cable company (Cox) doing now that they’ve not been able to force the city to give up its project?  They are competing!  They’ve announced an incredibly fast upgrade of their system in the area to the latest technology, DOCSIS 3, and are going to sell the people of Lafayette a 50Mbps broadband package (for more money, but this was the first city in Cox’s service area nationwide getting the upgrade — shocking for a community not exactly in a high tech corridor.)

When a municipal broadband network goes live in a community, the commercial providers finally cough up the upgrades they’ve spent years saying “no” to.  Don’t allow HB 1252 to just be the latest tool for the cable and telephone industry to use to say “no” to the people of North Carolina.  Withdraw it, vote against it, or do whatever it takes to shelve it.  Modifying it is simply not an acceptable option any longer.

Share/Save