Stop the Cap! » Editorial & Site News

North Carolina Action Alert Update – Get to Raleigh This Wednesday and Join the Fight

Jay Ovittore — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:33:07 +0000

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:

Manager, Time Warner Cable Construction
Legislator, NC General Assembly
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

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Your Questions Answered – August 2009

Phillip Dampier — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:16:17 +0000

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.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Coalition of the ‘Willing to Cap’ Complains About Monopolistic Behavior by Big Phone Companies

Phillip Dampier — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:46:30 +0000

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.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Department of Duh: Pew Study Finds Prices Lower for Broadband Where Competition Exists

Phillip Dampier — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:56:17 +0000

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%.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

On Sock Puppets & Industry Hacks: Reactions to Rep. Eric Massa’s Legislation – Predictable & Transparent

Phillip Dampier — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:28:26 +0000

"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.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

HR 2902 Frequently Asked Questions & Thoughts

Phillip Dampier — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:43:42 +0000

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

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Astroturfing: Pacific Technology Alliance – Another AT&T (Among Others) Supported “Grassroots” Group

Phillip Dampier — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 04:59:26 +0000

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.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Bug Swatters

Phillip Dampier — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:51:49 +0000

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.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

New Website Calls Out Top 10 “Worst” Internet Laws, But Who Decides?

Phillip Dampier — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:01:56 +0000

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.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Movie Mogul Who Trashed the Net Goes On the Net to Explain Trashing

Phillip Dampier — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 02:49:15 +0000

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.

Other coverage you may enjoy: