Dingell

Rep. John Dingell has told FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to drop broadband reform because the Michigan Democrat has not received a detailed reply to his letter about the matter sent back in May.  The Hill reports Dingell doesn’t like to be kept waiting for responses to his “Dingell-grams.”

“I find it wholly frustrating that Chairman Genachowski, after nearly two months, still has not responded to my questions about the classification of broadband Internet access services,” Dingell said in his letter.

Dingell added that he has “serious concerns about the FCC’s proposed course of action” and that Congress has “intense interest” in Genachowski’s plans.

In his May letter, Dingell had said he doubts Genachowski’s plan despite his support for network neutrality rules, which the FCC hopes to enact under the authority it would gain through its administrative maneuver.

“I feel Chairman Genachowski’s responses to my questions would be invaluable in informing the debate on the matter,” Dingell wrote this week.

He said the FCC should not proceed with Genachowski’s proposal to boost its power over Internet service providers through a regulatory maneuver known as “reclassification.” In his original letter, Dingell expressed “grave concern” that Genachowski’s plan risks reversal by the courts, putting “at risk significant past and future investments, perhaps to the detriment of the Nation’s economic recovery and continued technological leadership,” he wrote at the time.

Dingell’s days of putting his constituents first are well past.  He is the longest currently-serving Congressman and the third longest serving Congressman in the history of the country.  These days, having Washington officials bow before him is a much higher priority.  In a petulant letter sent to the chairman on July 20th, Dingell puts a deadline, in bold, for Genachowski’s reply.

Genachowski is probably wasting paper and time responding, considering Dingell already made public his opposition for broadband reform back in May when he wrote, “I have strong reservations about the course the commission is presently taking.”  Dingell said he’s worried that Genachowski’s proposal would be struck down in court, puts at risk “significant” past and future investments and could even “paralyze” other regulatory initiatives.

The reasons for his opposition amount to little more than concern trolling.  The telecommunications industry already challenges virtually every controversial policy enacted by government in the courts, threatens to slash investment in providing broadband service to those they’ve shown little interest in serving before, and do not deserve credit for “technological leadership” as the United States falls further behind others in broadband rankings.  The only threat to the national economic recovery from some cable and phone companies is another rate increase eating away at already tight budgets for most Americans.

Dingell’s latest noise opposing broadband reform brought praise from the U.S. Telecom Association, a group run by and for major broadband providers.  That should not be a surprise either, considering the USTA is Dingell’s 14th largest campaign contributor, donating $9,000 so far this congressional term.

Telecommunications interests who oppose pro-consumer broadband reform are among Dingell’s biggest contributors (in order of ranking):

Open Secrets reminds us this is a big money, high stakes fight with special interests pouring tens of millions into an all-out effort to stop meaningful broadband reform:

Since the start of the 2008 election cycle, telephone utility companies have given $12.7 million to federal candidates and party committees and spent $118.7 million on lobbying. Current lawmakers have collected $37.9 million from the industry, with Republicans collecting 51 percent of that.

The computers and Internet industry has spent even more money politicking and has leaned a little more heavily toward Democrats, giving current members of that party 60 percent of their nearly $50 million in total contributions. The industry has also spent $331.4 million on lobbying since 2007.

As the top all-time donor to federal politics, AT&T may have an especially strong standing on Capitol Hill. The company’s employees and political action committee have given $22.6 million since 1989 to current lawmakers through their candidate committees and leadership PACs, with 52 percent of that going to Republicans.

Verizon, too, is considered a “Heavy Hitter” for its extensive contributions over the years to federal political candidates. Current lawmakers have collected $9.2 million from Verizon’s employees and political action committee since 1989, with Democrats receiving 51 percent of that.

[...]

Here are the current lawmakers to bring in the most through their leadership PACs and candidate committees from telephone utility companies since 1989:

Opposing broadband reform that ultimately helps your constituents in return for campaign contributions and praise from groups like the USTA is business as usual in Washington.  Dingell’s outburst shows he’s forgotten exactly who he is supposed to be representing in this debate — his Michigan constituents, facing ever-increasing broadband bills.

Share/Save

Tim Conway's "Old Man" character from the Carol Burnett Show would be right at home using the Internet in these areas.

Nick Saint at the Business Insider has been sifting through some of the raw data released last week by the Federal Communications Commission regarding broadband service in the United States.  He’s managed to identify the 10 worst counties in America for broadband service based on statistics from 2008.  But two of those probably should have never been on the list.  More on that later.

Harrison County, Mississippi — A single pond in Harrison County is the only known habitat of the critically endangered dusky gopher frog.  It doesn’t have broadband, and neither do most of the residents of this beleaguered part of southern Mississippi.  The cities of Gulfport and Biloxi are in Harrison County, an area torn up by hurricanes from Camille to Katrina.  Now, the beaches are coated in BP oil.  Harrison County can’t get a break. Cable One and AT&T are the primary providers.  Cable One’s dreadful service only reaches well-populated areas and AT&T has taken its sweet time expanding DSL service in the area.

Imperial County, California — The nation’s lettuce basket, Imperial County communities live on a very low fiber-optic diet.  While the soil is rich for crops, the people who plant and harvest them are not.  El Centro, the biggest city, has some broadband available, but with the city having the nation’s highest unemployment rate (27.3 percent), many can’t afford it.  Once in farm country, cable doesn’t offer service and DSL is hard to come by.

Corson County, South Dakota — Representative of the pervasive problem of broadband unavailability on Native American lands, a large part of Corson County includes the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.  Saint notes the FCC found just 12.5 percent of Native Americans subscribe to broadband service, compared to 56 percent of the rest of us.

Ector County, Texas — Odessa’s hometown America-charm was put on display for all to see on NBC’s Friday Night Lights, which celebrated small town high school football.  The reality is less exciting.  Like Harrison County, Ector residents are stuck with Cable One, which loves Internet Overcharging schemes and spied on its Alabama broadband customers.  Good ole AT&T grudgingly provided DSL, if you could get it, until mid-2009 when U-verse finally started to show up.  Now large parts of the county outside of Odessa can’t get that either.

San Juan, Puerto Rico — Usually considered an afterthought by American telecommunications companies, Puerto Rico has long suffered with low quality service.  Caribbean Net News: “Puerto Rico’s broadband penetration rate is unacceptable, with less than 40% of households subscribing to broadband services”, said Carlo Marazzi, President of Critical Hub Networks. “While there are many factors at play, broadband in Puerto Rico is simply too expensive and too slow, when compared to the rest of the nation.  Broadband Internet service in Puerto Rico is 60% more expensive and 78% slower than the United States national median. In a report published this year by the Communication Workers of America (CWA) which ranked broadband speeds in the 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico was ranked in last place (52nd place).

Jasper County, Missouri — Saint noted 18 percent of Jasper County lives below the poverty line, which is not exactly attractive to broadband investment.  Jasper County’s broadband needs are barely met by a cable provider, AT&T, and for some, an electric utility operating a Wireless ISP, providing service where cable and DSL don’t go.  For Jasper County residents, the challenge can be cost as much as access.

Appomattox County, Virginia — Every student known Appomattox was the last stand of Confederate leader Robert E. Lee during the Civil War.  Today, residents there are worked to their last nerve because they can’t easily obtain high speed Internet.  There is no DSL service from the phone company and only limited cable service.  But at least the county is trying.  Let’s let John Spencer, assistant county administrator, tell you in his own words what Appomattox County is doing to deliver broadband for its 14,000 residents:

Bristol Bay Borough, Alaska — The epitome of rural America, large swaths of Alaska are dependent on subsidies paid from the Universal Service Fund for basic telephone service.  Outside of large cities, cable television is a theory.  Telephone company DSL service and wireless are the predominate broadband technologies in rural, expansive Alaska.  For many areas, both are awful.  Bristol Bay Borough is known as the “Red Salmon Capital of the World,” if only because there are far more salmon than there are fishermen to catch them.  Internet access for many of the area’s 953 residents means a trip to the Martin Monsen Library, which offers free Wi-Fi for limited access. If you want Internet at home, it will cost you plenty:

Share/Save

Your Friendly Internet traffic cops Time Warner Cable and Comcast paid for research that suggests those Internet speed slowdowns are your fault (or at least not theirs).

A study from MIT suggests that broadband speed test results that show “real world” broadband speeds far below what your provider promises are actually better than you think, and if they’re not — it’s not your provider’s fault.  The paper, Understanding Broadband Speed Measurements, finds slow Internet speeds are often your problem, because you run too many applications on your computer, visit inaccurate speed measurement sites, use a wireless router, or have run into an Internet traffic jam outside of the control of your ISP.

The research comes courtesy of MIT’s Internet Traffic Analysis Study (MITAS) project, financially backed by some of North America’s largest cable and phone companies — Clearwire, Comcast, Liberty Global (Dr. John Malone, CEO), and Time Warner Cable in the United States, Rogers Communications and Telus in Canada.  Those providers also deliver much of the broadband speed data MITAS relies on as part of its research.  Additional assistance came from MIT’s Communications Futures Program which counts among its members Cisco, an equipment manufacturer and promoter of the “zettabyte” theory of broadband traffic overload and cable giant Comcast.

The study was commissioned to consider whether broadband speed is a suitable metric to determine whether an ISP provides good or bad service to its customers and if speed testing websites accurately depict actual broadband speeds.  Because Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have set minimum speed goals and have expressed concerns about providers actually delivering the speeds they promise, the issue of broadband speed is among the top priorities of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan.

“If you are doing measurements, and you want to look at data to support whatever your policy position is, these are the things that you need to be careful of,” Steve Bauer, technical lead on the MIT Analysis Study (MITAS) told TG Daily. “For me, the point of the paper is to improve the understanding of the data that’s informing those processes.”

Bauer’s 39 page study indicts nearly everyone except service providers for underwhelming broadband speeds:

While a principal motivation for many in looking at speed measurements is to assess whether a broadband access ISP is meeting its commitment to provide an advertised data service (e.g. “up to 20 megabits per second”), we conclude that most of the popular speed data sources fail to provide sufficiently accurate data for this purpose. In many cases, the reason a user measures a data rate below the advertised rate is due to bottlenecks on the user-side, at the destination server, or elsewhere in the network (beyond the access ISP’s control). A particularly common non-ISP bottleneck is the receive window (rwnd) advertised by the user’s transport protocol (TCP).

In the NDT dataset we examine later in this paper, 38% of the tests never made use of all the available network capacity.

Other non-ISP bottlenecks also exist that constrain the data rate well below the rate supported by broadband access connections. Local bottlenecks often arise in home wireless networks. The maximum rate of an 802.11b WiFi router (still a very common wireless router) is 11mbps. If wireless signal quality is an issue, the 802.11b router will drop back to 5.5mbps, 2mbps, and then 1 mbps. Newer wireless routers (e.g. 802.11g/n) have higher maximum speeds (e.g. 54 mbps) but will similarly adapt the link speed to improve the signal quality.

End-users also can self-congest when other applications or family members share the broadband connection. Their measured speed will be diminished as the number of competing flows increase.

The study also criticizes the FCC for relying on raw speed data that does not take into account the level of service being chosen by a broadband customer, claiming many service providers actually deliver higher speed service than their “lite” plans advertise.

In short, it’s everyone else’s fault (including yours) for those Internet speed slowdowns.

Ultimately, the report’s conclusion can be summed up in three words: change the subject.  It’s not slow broadband speeds that are the problem — it’s the lack of understanding about what you can accomplish with the speeds you do get from your ISP:

In the next few years, as the average speed of broadband increases, and the markets become more sophisticated, we expect that attention may shift towards a more nuanced characterization of what matters for evaluating the quality of broadband services. Issues such as availability (reliability) and latencies to popular content and services may become more important in how services are advertised and measured. We welcome such a more nuanced view and believe it is important even in so far as one’s principal focus is on broadband speeds.

One thing the paper does effectively deliver at top speed are industry talking points, particularly the one that says less regulation is better (underlining ours):

Our hope is that progress may be made via a market-mediated process that engages users, academics, the technical standards community, ISPs, and policymakers in an open debate; one that will not require strong regulatory mandates. Market efficiency and competition will be best served if there is more and better understood data available on broadband speeds and other performance metrics of merit (e.g., pricing, availability, and other technical characteristics).

These kinds of research reports are often tainted by the industry money that pays for them.  Researchers and universities routinely deliver industry-pleasing, sober-sounding studies in return for considerable financial contributions, grants, and other forms of underwriting.  This report lacks full disclosure about who is helping to pay for it — North America’s largest cable operators, who also deliver much of the data MITAS relies on for their research.

Ask yourself how much longer these companies would be writing checks to MIT had they delivered a report implicating them in false advertising of speeds they do not deliver or for relying on inadequate upstream providers to handle their Internet traffic?  The report pulls any and all punches delivered to the companies who finance it — a clear sign of bought-and-paid-for research in action.

Share/Save

Alltel's logo, in use before 2006

Alltel Wireless is back.  Two years after Alltel was bought by Verizon Wireless, some 900,000 customers in Georgia, Illinois, North and South Carolina, Ohio and Idaho not included in the transition to Verizon will remain Alltel customers under new management.

For many customers, that suits them just fine.  In fact, with an increasing number of complaints from the 13.2 million former Alltel customers forced into a shotgun cellular wedding with Verizon or AT&T, many wish they could have the choice to return to Alltel themselves.

The demise of Alltel is another classic example of a telecommunications deal that made sense (and dollars) for Wall Street and a handful of Alltel executives, but left thousands of employees out in the cold in the unemployment line and customers coping with broken promises and higher bills.

It’s a story familiar to most of our readers, because the game plan for most telecom mergers and acquisitions delivers all of the benefits to a select few and ends up costing consumers plenty.  That these deals get almost routine approval from the Federal Communications Commission is ironic, considering that same agency commissioned studies that unsurprisingly found increased consolidation and lack of competition in the wireless marketplace.

The end of Alltel is a great example of what happens when an industry achieves near-total deregulation. Lobbyists sell deregulation as directly benefiting consumers with increased competition, more innovation, and lower prices.  In reality, from broadcasting to broadband, deregulation sparks escalating rounds of mergers, acquisitions, and buyouts.  Wall Street doesn’t want increased competition — it wants fewer options, less costly innovation, and higher prices to sustain profits.  When Wall Street speaks, most of these companies listen.

Since 1996, when the Telecommunications Act was passed, more than two dozen telecommunications companies have been swallowed up in mergers and buyouts.  Consumers find themselves with new providers and higher bills.  But not everyone is hurting from laissez-faire tele-economics.  For a handful of top executives, the result has been riches beyond their wildest dreams.  Even when they are forced out through merger deals, the golden parachutes that follow brings tears of joy.  Just ask Alltel’s last CEO — Scott T. Ford — he said goodbye to Alltel in 2007 with a parting bonus of nearly $150 million dollars.

Alltel’s History — Keeping It In the Family

Alltel’s history in the telephone business traces all the way back to 1943, with the formation of the Allied Telephone Company of Little Rock, Arkansas.  Back then, telephone service in the U.S. was mostly a monopoly of AT&T and several smaller independent phone companies. Allied’s business began as a pole and wiring provider for those phone companies.  In 1983, Alltel – the traditional phone company – was created from a merger between Allied Telephone and Mid-Continent Telephone.  In 1985, Alltel Wireless service began from its first cellular system in Charlotte, N.C.  In less than a decade, the wireless division would expand service in smaller cities and towns across mid-America and the south, often where larger carriers didn’t want to provide service.

Just about everything in the telecommunications industry changed with the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton.  The law that promised to open the doors to better service and more competition actually deregulated most of the industry into an “anything-goes” circus of money-fueled mergers, buyouts, and consolidation.  Important consumer protections were discarded along the way.

The implications of the Act were well understood by corporate executives in the industry, and companies spent millions to lobby for its passage.  They considered it a down-payment for better days to come.  The biography of Alltel’s then-CEO Joe T. Ford noted the passage of the law changed everything, even leading to a violation of an agreement he made with his son when he was only 12 years old:

Scott T. Ford, the president and chief executive officer of the Alltel Corporation, made his first business deal at the age of 12 with his father, Joe T. Ford. The two agreed that Scott would never work at Alltel. Joe wanted to spare his son what he himself had endured since coming to work for his father-inlaw, Hugh Wilbourne Jr., in 1959. After the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, however, the Fords rethought their agreement, and, at age 35, Scott Ford became executive vice president of Alltel. Within two years he was appointed CEO, following in the footsteps of his grandfather Wilbourne, who formed Allied Telephone Company in 1943 in Little Rock, Arkansas.

All that hard work by earlier generations was about to pay some serious dividends in a laissez-faire telecommunications world.

Beebe literally drew his own road map depicting his idea of success - remaining on top after a flurry of mergers and ongoing industry consolidation

The Dot.com Boom… for Some

At the end of the 20th century, the telecommunications industry was in the middle of the dot.com boom.

The impact of the 1996 Telecom Act did fuel change among traditional telecom companies.  While some new players were wildly upgrading networks and building fiber optic networks to sustain the dot.com book, most of the traditional phone and cable companies were spending their time and attention on mergers and leveraged buyouts.  The Baby Bell-AT&T empire that was broken up in the mid-1980s was nearly restored to its former glory with super-sized Verizon and AT&T.  Independent phone companies which operated for a century were suddenly the targets of buyouts, now consolidated by regional players like CenturyTel, Embarq, Alltel and Citizens.

Alltel didn’t just buy up other independent phone companies.  It also bought wireless providers and soon merged its landline and wireless divisions into a single company.  This was the era when the “full service phone company” was trendy — capable of delivering local, long distance, and wireless service all from one company, usually on one bill.

Alltel’s executives, like then-Alltel group president Kevin Beebe, delivered presentations to Wall Street bankers like Credit Suisse/First Boston promoting Alltel and its made-for-consolidation balance sheet.  He literally drew his own road map showing his route to success, depicting himself on top after successive mergers with smaller players.

Unfortunately, the high-powered, cash rich days of the dot.com deal were about to end.  By the start of the new century, it was all over.  An oversupply of infrastructure was built to support web-based businesses that would never launch.  Many of those already in business shuttered their virtual doors.  Venture capital for telecommunications projects dried up.  But there was still plenty of money to be made in wireless, and Alltel did obtain financing to launch mergers and buyouts with as many small cell phone providers as possible.  By the early 2000s, the mentality in the telecommunications business was “small is bad.”  The only path to success was to buy your competition, or be bought by them.

The business of mergers and acquisitions earned countless millions for Wall Street banks, who charged fees to help structure the deals and usually helped finance them.  Executives always won, even if a merger brought an end to their career at the company.  Golden parachutes kept the top floor happy.  The only losers were the soon-to-be-ex-employees and middle management declared redundant and escorted from the building.  They were the “cost savings” promoted as a benefit of the merger months earlier.  Meanwhile, customers were stuck dealing with the transition changes, service interruptions, and the eventually higher bill that always result from reduced competition.

During the first half of this decade, it was Alltel doing the acquiring — spending fortunes to acquire other regional wireless phone companies:

• 2002: Alltel acquires 700,000 wireless customers from CenturyTel Inc. in Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Texas and Wisconsin for $1.5 billion.
• 2003: Alltel purchases wireless properties in Mississippi from Cellular XL.
• 2004: Alltel acquires wireless properties from MobileTel, U.S. Cellular and TDS Telecom.
• 2005: Alltel merges with Western Wireless Corp., acquires wireless properties from Public Service Cellular, certain wireless assets from Cingular and exchanges properties with U.S. Cellular of Chicago to meet divestiture requirements related to Alltel’s merger with Western Wireless Corp. Alltel agrees to purchase Midwest Wireless for $1 billion in cash.

Despite the shopping spree, Alltel’s executives like Beebe continued to let it be known Alltel itself was “well-positioned for wireless consolidation” — available for a buyout… for the right price.  By 2006, Alltel had become the fifth largest telecommunications company in the country, with operations in 34 states.  Thanks to lengthy roaming agreements with Sprint and Verizon Wireless, Alltel could deliver national service even from a regional network.

Alltel also enjoyed a satisfied customer base, thanks to innovative calling plans and services that were unheard of from other cell companies.  In 2006, it introduced the popular My Circle calling plan, which allowed customers to make unlimited wireless calls to up to ten numbers, regardless of whether they were landlines or other Alltel wireless customers.  That same year, U Prepaid was introduced, which included unlimited calling and text messaging to a pre-designated number — perfect for those needing to call home.  Alltel prepaid customers could also roam on many other carrier’s networks without paying enormous roaming fees.

Alltel Sells Out Its Landlines

Until the 1996 Telecom Act, most publicly-owned telephone companies were considered a safe utility stock.  In rural communities, many of the phone companies that established service where AT&T’s Bell System did not have been around since the 1890s.  Often owned by a family or cooperative, these independent phone companies popped up when Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone patents expired.  The companies were hardly growth hotbeds, traditionally serving communities that saw little growth and lots of expenses from the wide-open country they had to wire.

After deregulation, venture capital moved aggressively into the wireless and cable sectors.  For the first time, many rural phone companies faced competition from rural cellular providers and cable companies experimenting with “digital phone” service delivered over cable television lines.  But unlike the phone company, these providers were not required to deliver service to everyone.  Most of these services would only challenge the phone company in population centers within towns and villages, that also happened to be where most of their customers lived and worked.

The business model was changing.  As rural phone companies began losing customers to cable and wireless providers, some of them looked to mergers and acquisitions to reduce costs and improve revenues to keep revenue stable, even as customers disconnected.  To maintain interest and  investment from stockholders, many traditional publicly-held phone companies began paying shareholders increased dividends, which attracted attention from Wall Street.

On July 11, 2004, one independent phone company set a new bar for dividends and probably changed the long term business models of rural phone companies for years to come.  Citizens Communications Corporation, as part of a corporate re-shuffle, announced the resignation of its then-CEO Leonard Tow, changed its name to Frontier Communications, and announced an incredible one-time payout of a $2 dividend for every share of common stock, and an ongoing annual $1 dividend, payable every quarter.

With a payout like that, investors began demanding increasing dividends from other phone companies, Alltel included.  To pay that kind of dividend, you need revenue, and slow-growth rural phone companies cannot just generate millions in new revenue selling voicemail, long distance plans, and caller-ID.  That kind of money comes from new lines of business, such as broadband, or from cash-generating mergers and buyouts.

Broadband required millions of dollars in new investments, increasing short term costs and having to wait several years to see a return.  Mergers and acquisitions delivered fast cash and instant results — short term benefits Wall Street loves to see.

So while phone companies continued to lose landline customers at rates up to 7 percent per year, another round of frenzied consolidation through mergers and buyouts erupted.

For Alltel, already established with a strong wireless division, seeing the long term prospects of trying to sustain its landline business as it lost customers seemed pointless.  In December 2005, Alltel announced it was dumping its 3,000,000 landline customers, combining them with another 500,000 customers of Irving, Texas-based Valor Communications in a $9.1 billion dollar tax-free deal to create a new independent landline company — Windstream Communications.

Alltel would henceforth be a wireless phone company-only, and a much richer one at that.  Unfortunately, despite its ranking as America’s fifth largest wireless provider, Alltel still remained a regional player, far behind its fourth largest rival T-Mobile.  With a dwindling number of wireless companies to acquire, speculation grew Alltel itself would soon become a takeover target.

Click here to view the embedded video.

KLRT-TV in Little Rock covered the announced acquisition of Alltel by Goldman Sachs on May 20, 2007 in these three reports.  (15 minutes)

Goldman Sachs Moves In

Within two years, Alltel’s independence would come to an end.  In 2007, Alltel formally opened an auction to sell the company’s wireless assets to the highest bidder.  But in a surprise move, company executives suddenly canceled the auction and accepted a $26 billion leveraged buyout takeover offer from TPG Capital and the buyout arm of Goldman Sachs.  Now, Wall Street investment bankers would own and control Alltel outright.

Speculation in the financial press about why Alltel canceled the auction and didn’t even entertain other bidders for the company raised eyebrows at the time.  The windfall payouts to Alltel’s executives disclosed in later Securities & Exchange Commission filings may have had something to do with it.  Company executives won the equivalent of the Powerball Lotto:

• CEO Scott T. Ford received nearly $150 million dollars.
• Richard Massey, former chief strategy officer and general counsel walked away with almost $50 million.
• Alltel Chief Operating Officer Jeff Fox cleared more than $70 million.
• C.J. Duvall, who was EVP of human resources earned nearly $10 million.
• Kevin Beebe, group president of operations went home with more than $60 million.

That’s quite a haul for the top floor executives at Alltel heading for the exits.

But Goldman Sachs had no intention of running its own phone company for long.  Analysts predicted the investment bank would hold onto Alltel for a year or two in hopes of selling it at a premium to one of the other wireless carriers, probably AT&T or Verizon.

That’s exactly what happened, except it only took seven months.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Bloomberg News took an in-depth look at the 2007 Alltel acquisition by Goldman Sachs and ongoing wireless consolidation. (Corrected Video) (5 minutes)

Verizon Takes Over – The Dog & Pony Approval Circus

With the collapse of the banking sector in 2007 and 2008, Goldman Sachs needed to get rid of assets to raise money.  The subprime mortgage mess left banks with $386 billion in asset writedowns and credit losses.  By putting Alltel up for sale, Goldman would earn $28.1 billion, enough to pay off the loans financing Alltel’s buyout months earlier, and even come out ahead.

The buyer, Verizon Wireless, sought to combine Alltel’s rural cell tower network with its own to expand coverage and pick up a stronger presence in middle America.

In the high stakes, high cost consolidation of telecommunications in the United States, what few regulatory hurdles Verizon would face getting the deal approved meant bringing forth the dog and pony show from Verizon’s lobbyists.  The Federal Communications Commission could alter or even kill its deal.  To make sure that didn’t happen, Verizon counted on the usual assortment of “dollar a holler” advocacy groups, heavy lobbying in Congress, and other friendly allies to help get the deal approved.

Unsurprisingly, Verizon can always count on help from free market allies and alleged community service groups with whom it has a financial relationship or contributes executive talent to serve on their boards.  Most of these have no involvement in telecommunications matters, except when it interests or impacts Verizon.  Suddenly they spring to action, conveniently submitting similar comments supporting whatever Verizon had on the agenda before the FCC.

Click here to view the embedded video.

KLRT and KTHV-TV in Little Rock, Ark., where Alltel was headquartered, ran a series of reports explaining the impact the Verizon-Alltel merger would have on Alltel’s service and jobs in Little Rock. (23 minutes)

Selected Members of the Verizon Friendship Crew Filing Comments Supporting the Verizon Purchase of Alltel (click the names to read their letters to the FCC):

• Institute for Policy Innovation
• Communications Consumers United
• Native American Television
• ASPIRA Association
• Organization of Rural Education
• The Free State Foundation (Political)
• U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
• U.S. Pan Asian American Chamber of Commerce
• Pacific Research Institute
• Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council
• National Hispanic Council on Aging
• Women Impacting Public Policy
• American GI Forum
• U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce
• Hispanic Alliance for Prosperity Institute
• Latino Coalition
• Consumers for Competitive Choice (Astroturf)
• Dominican American National Roundtable
• National Black Chamber of Commerce
• National Indian Council on Age
• Freedom Works Foundation (Political and Associated With Corporate Lobbying)
• American Association of Peoples with Disabilities
• U.S. Cattlemen’s Association
• League of United Latin American Citizens

Alltel's service areas were carved up between three major providers - Verizon, AT&T, and ATN

Click here to view the embedded video.

Bloomberg News considered the business/industry implications of the Verizon-Alltel merger in these reports. (9 minutes)

Consumers Get Broken Promises & More Expensive Service

The benefits list of what Verizon promised to bring Alltel customers was heavily redacted in FCC filings as “highly confidential.”  What was promised, in public, was that Verizon would deliver improved service to Alltel customers who could continue with their existing service plans..

What consumers really got were major headaches, bad service, and much higher bills.  Former Alltel customers continue to tear up Verizon Wireless’ support forums with page after page of complaints.  As one former Alltel customer puts it, “we are the abandoned children of the redheaded stepchild.”

Some readers of Stop the Cap! shared their own experiences with the Alltel sale. Penny writes:

I first had Midwest Wireless that was bought out by Alltel which was just bought out by Verizon. With each switch I had to change my phone because something on the new system would not work on my old “previous provider” cell phone. Verizon has yet again said that for the “data charges” I can not block anything as my cell phone is too old and that I need to get a “Verizon” phone. My phone is not even a year old.

Enough about phones, data charges, rude customer service. You want to talk about dishonesty and unfair practices…just say Verizon.

In May I called and asked what I should do about leaving for a trip in which I would go out of my phone zone. The customer assistant that I talked to informed me that to avoid roaming charges I should temporarily switch to a national plan. I asked several times if I would be able to go back to my previous plan and was promised that I could set the start and end date for the new national plan. Well can you guess what they did? Yep they did the old bait and switch and from what I know about law….or what I thought about law was that this practice is illegal. Verizon started the new plan almost after I got back from my trip and plus would not set me back to my old plan. So now I had over 2 times the old bill plus roaming charges and less minutes. All I can say is my last call to Verizon was asking when my contract was up and what the termination fee is. By the way the $200 might be well spent.

Penny was switched away from her grandfathered Alltel plan to a new Verizon service plan, and potentially also ended up with a brand new two year contract, without new phones to accompany it.  Any Verizon customer on a grandfathered service plan should never consider allowing a customer service representative to make substantial plan changes — you could lose your old plan.  Grandfathered customers can make certain changes from the Verizon website (adding text plans, changing calling features on phones, etc.) without terminating their existing plan, but be cautious.  Once you lose an old plan, you may never get it back.

Steve, another Stop the Cap! reader, writes:

I was with Alltel for 15 to 20 years and a very happy customer — never a problem. Then Verizon took over and it has been a problem ever since. First off let me tell you that we are truck drivers and travel all over the US. We were in Texas when our laptop died so we went and bought a new one.  Our Alltel air card would not work in the new computer. This was at the time when Verizon was taking over, so we had to go to Verizon and get a new air card. By the way we had unlimited with Alltel. The sales person in Verizon sold us a new card and got us on the road again. From that day forward we have had to visit a Verizon store about our bill every month. Last month was the final straw. We did not like the 5 gig limit to begin with and did not trust it so we were watching it closely so we thought. When the MB’s got up near 4100 we called Verizon and they said you are no where near your 5 gig. Well when the bill came in it said we used over 8 gig and instead of our bill being 200.00 it was over 400.00 for the month . Since this has happened we have already dropped their phone service and may have to drop the Internet and pay the penalties.

Verizon's wireless modem

Steve ran into the problem former Alltel customers frequently encounter when traveling or moving outside of their old Alltel service area.  Many Verizon representatives are not well trained about their new Alltel customers.  Until the transition is complete, many Alltel customers still use equipment that gives priority to Alltel’s network first.  If not correctly provisioned, equipment may not work properly outside of areas where Alltel had service.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Alltel and Verizon were accused of bill cramming in the state of Florida — subjecting customers to monthly charges for “free” ringtones and other services.  The Florida Attorney General’s office ordered refunds for all affected Floridians.  Cell phone companies have an incentive to allow these services to get away with loading up customers’ bills with unauthorized charges — they receive a cut of the action.  WTVT-TV in Tampa reports.  (3 minutes)

Verizon’s 5GB usage cap also includes a steep overlimit penalty.  We’ve seen reports that customers who use service around the country do not immediately see correct numbers for data usage.  That can cause a sudden traffic spike as usage from other areas finally shows up on one’s account.  Verizon customers should have the ability to opt-out from overlimit penalties.  When their 5GB is used up, they should be presented with a screen that requires them to acknowledge they wish to continue using the service and face the consequences on their bill.

Verizon’s tricks and traps for Alltel customers always pay off for Verizon, almost never for customers:

1. Verizon is doing everything possible to get Alltel customers to “upgrade” their service to Verizon plans so they can get them away from Alltel’s legacy plans offering more features for less money.  Once a customer renews a contract with a new Verizon phone or makes a significant change to their service plan, they are switched to a new Verizon plan… often including tricks and traps.  Unlimited texting costs extra on Verizon, as do many other features.  Customers who mistakenly buy what they thought was a comparable service plan learn the errors of their ways when the $1,100 Verizon bill arrives a month later.  Forgetting to add text and data plans can be an expensive mistake on Verizon’s network.
2. Dangling a free or discounted phone upgrade for former Alltel customers often also requires an “upgraded” service plan… from Verizon.  If you want a new subsidized phone, you may lose your old Alltel plan.
3. In many areas, Alltel phones gravitate towards Alltel’s legacy cell network.  That means the phone will choose a weaker cell tower formerly operated by Alltel instead of a closer Verizon cell site.  A roaming/software upgrade normally would correct this and help route calls to the best possible cell site, but customers overwhelmingly complain that doesn’t happen with Alltel-provided phones.  Customers are encouraged to choose a new Verizon phone instead… with a new Verizon service plan.

Click here to view the embedded video.

This former Alltel customer in North Carolina was charged $400 for an unjustified early termination fee when his service switched to Verizon Wireless as part of the merger.  Despite repeated calls, Verizon-owned Alltel turned his account over to a collection agency. Verizon told him to pay off the Alltel collection agency account and they’d credit him $400.  He paid and then Verizon refused to credit his account and turned him over to their collection agency who started calling him at work.  They also ruined his credit.  It took WTKR-TV in Hampton Roads, Virginia airing this story on the 6 o’clock news to get Verizon’s attention after seven months.  (2 minutes)

Things are even more complicated in areas where the FCC has forced Alltel to divest its wireless assets and not transfer them to Verizon.  In most areas, those customers will shortly discover they are becoming part of AT&T’s wireless family, as AT&T bought the majority of those divested markets.  AT&T, however, does not operate with the same wireless standard Alltel and Verizon do.  AT&T phones work on the GSM standard while Alltel and Verizon work on CDMA.  For the time being, AT&T will simply operate the existing CDMA network Alltel used to own, but eventually every affected customer will get a free upgrade to a new GSM phone.  That upgrade better come quick for frequent travelers who are former Alltel customers switched to AT&T.  They’ll find getting service from AT&T outside of their home areas difficult on a network that uses an entirely different standard.  AT&T will likely have to maintain roaming agreements with Verizon for former Alltel customers until conversion is complete.

Click here to view the embedded video.

KELO and KSFY-TV, both in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, informed South Dakota’s former Alltel customers they’d soon have AT&T as their cell phone company, making Apple’s iPod available in stores in the state for the first time. (3 minutes)

A handful of customers won’t end up with either Verizon or AT&T.  In parts of Wisconsin, Element Mobile will take control of their Alltel account. But nearly a million customers will find their former Alltel service is now provided by… Alltel?

The Return of Alltel Wireless

McGill

Allied Wireless Communications Corp., which is staffed by former Alltel employees, has acquired the remaining leftover pieces of Alltel’s network, including its name, for $223 million dollars.  The all-new Alltel will have the same logo and calling plan features the old Alltel offered, and for 900,000 customers, it will be as if they never left.

“We feel like it’s putting the bank back together here in Little Rock,” Wade McGill, chief administrative officer for Alltel Wireless and AWCC told RCR Wireless. The original Alltel Corp. was headquartered in Little Rock, Ark., before being acquired by Verizon Wireless for $28 billion in early 2009. As part of the acquisition, Verizon Wireless was forced to divest some markets, a majority of which were acquired by AT&T Mobility for $3 billion, with most of the rest picked up by what will remain Alltel.

The company will have extensive roaming agreements for nationwide coverage and will focus on maintaining high quality customer care.

“The ability to retain the brand was key in these markets and you can’t underestimate the value of that,” McGill noted, adding that more than 50% of its current customer base have been Alltel customers for more than six years.

“We need to have a laser focus on the customer experience and being local,” McGill explained, citing a common mantra of rural carriers forced to compete against large, nationwide operators. “That’s how we want to think about our plans moving forward. … I think our plan is to grow organically at first and just focus on providing excellent customer service and support.”

But that doesn’t preclude Alltel from starting to expand operations to other parts of the country, perhaps even in areas now taken over by Verizon.

The new Alltel will remain a CDMA provider with plans to move to the LTE standard, which will deliver a 4G-like experience.

Going Back to the Future

In the end, many of the 13 million former Alltel customers probably wish they could have their old Alltel back, too.

Instead, they got wheeled and dealed away, first by an investment bank/casino that later used taxpayer dollars to bail itself out of its own greed, then by Verizon and AT&T who promise a future of higher bills and poorer service for many trapped in two year contracts. Too often, what’s in the best interests of consumers are an afterthought in these kinds of transactions, even today. Despite the FCC’s own findings that wireless competition is shrinking in a consolidating wireless world, they still found a way to green light deals like this that reduce competition even further.

Share/Save

Obama

President Obama signed a memorandum this morning that will free up 500Mhz of government and privately-owned spectrum over the next decade to double the amount of wireless broadband capacity in the United States.

The Obama Administration claims the newly available spectrum will throw a rescue line to overburdened wireless networks that are facing a spectrum crunch.  The White House estimates wireless data usage will explode — growing between 20 and 45 times in the next five years.

President Obama:

Few technological developments hold as much potential to enhance America’s economic competitiveness, create jobs, and improve the quality of our lives as wireless high-speed access to the Internet.  Innovative new mobile technologies hold the promise for a virtuous cycle — millions of consumers gain faster access to more services at less cost, spurring innovation, and then a new round of consumers benefit from new services.  The wireless revolution has already begun with millions of Americans taking advantage of wireless access to the Internet.

Expanded wireless broadband access will trigger the creation of innovative new businesses, provide cost-effective connections in rural areas, increase productivity, improve public safety, and allow for the development of mobile telemedicine, telework, distance learning, and other new applications that will transform Americans’ lives.

In practical terms, the reallocation of spectrum could spark a battle between the current spectrum holders — often government agencies and private UHF television stations — and the government.  Parts of the plan will require Congressional approval, a sure-fire guarantee that wireless providers will have to write some more checks to their astroturf and sock puppet friends to help sell the benefits of the plan to a wary Congress.

Since most of the spectrum would likely be sold at auction, the proceeds could deliver the administration a tidy sum to either reduce the federal budget deficit and/or fund broadband initiatives.

But what might seem at first like a win-win might not turn out that way in the end.

We have the following concerns:

Past spectrum auctions have largely benefited incumbent wireless carriers, especially companies like AT&T and Verizon who have the deep pockets that guarantee successful bids at auctions.  Both wireless carriers are not actually using all of the spectrum they already acquired in earlier auctions and have essentially warehoused those frequencies, particularly in rural areas, to keep them out of the hands of other companies that could deliver service.  FCC requirements that auction winners actually utilize their acquired spectrum have been so lax as to be laughable.  Carriers can easily satisfy FCC requirements building only in urban areas and leaving large swaths of the countryside unserved. The FCC must set rules that auction winners use their allotments in both rural and urban areas, or face fines or forfeiture.

Setting aside some frequency blocks for smaller providers and would-be competitors is critical.  In today’s mobile wireless marketplace two companies are superpowers and then there is everyone else.  Both AT&T and Verizon have the resources to outbid virtually anyone.  Allowing blocks of frequencies to be reserved exclusively for new competitors would bolster competition and give consumers more choices.  Those frequencies must be sold in a block that is identical nationwide — not leftover spectrum running through several frequency bands.

Providing additional spectrum for wireless broadband isn’t a problem, but with complaints about wireless service providers growing, along with consumers’ bills, now is the time to reform wireless for the benefit of consumers.  Let’s make it a “win” for everyone.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Bloomberg News explains the controversy behind the transfer of spectrum from the government and broadcasters to the mobile broadband industry.  (2 minutes)

Share/Save

This man could be one of five helping to guide the future of your broadband service. Kyle McSlarrow is the head of the cable industry lobby.

Free Press, the pro-consumer advocacy group, spent $42,000 to alert the public the fix was in at the Federal Communications Commission.

The agency has been holding secret meetings with four (now five) contenders in the battle for consumer broadband reform: Verizon, AT&T, Google, and Skype.  The Washington Post reports this morning the lack of cable industry participation we reported last night has apparently not been a problem after all.  The cable industry lobbying group NCTA is also invited.

Consumers aren’t invited.  Neither is the press.

Josh Silver from Free Press:

“It looks like yet another federal agency is catering to big business behind closed doors and ignoring the American public. It’s inexcusable that the FCC is brokering backroom deals with industry lobbyists, while pretending to run a transparent process. After the financial crisis and the oil spill, you would think the Obama administration would have learned a lesson. But we won’t stand by and watch the Internet go the way of Wall Street and the Gulf of Mexico.”

“Despite the chairman’s campaign to be transparent, it’s doing the same things as the previous administration,” added Silver.

A source at the meeting said the sides were far apart on the issues — telecommunications companies oppose Net Neutrality, content producers favor it.  Telecom companies don’t want broadband oversight, some content producers do.

Share/Save

Dick Cheney's ghost is haunting the halls at the FCC these days as the agency conducts secret, closed-door meetings with just four companies to achieve "common ground" on broadband regulation. Consumers are not invited to attend.

In 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney convened the first meeting of the always-off-the-record National Energy Policy Development Group.  Secretly inviting executives of the nation’s largest oil companies and lobbyists for natural gas and mining, Cheney hoped to find “common ground” on energy issues that he could translate into legislation on Capitol Hill.  The final report kept the names of the self-interested corporate executives off the member roster, and predictably called for legislative actions that would directly benefit those in attendance.

In June 2010, a series of meetings with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s chief of staff and executives from AT&T, Verizon, Google and Skype got underway to find “common ground” on the issues of broadband regulation and Net Neutrality.  With irony, the same FCC that promised it would be “the most open and transparent ever” has barred the press and the public from participation.  No consumers were invited.  No minutes from the meetings will be disclosed.  In short, these are “closed-door” meetings.

Even more surprising, apparently the FCC forgot to invite Comcast, the cable conglomerate most directly responsible for the agency having its authority cut from beneath it in the first place.

When the Washington Post asked Eddie Lazarus, Genachowski’s chief of staff, what was on the agenda, only vague notions about “seizing the opportunity” to find common agreement on issues like Net Neutrality were disclosed.  Lazarus added the big four were also there to give input on Congress’ interest in revising the Communications Act.

That’s great news for thousands of Washington’s lobbyists who helped fashion the disastrous 1996 Communications Act that represented Christmas morning for corporate interests — more deregulation in the broadcast business which lead to massive consolidation, giveaways to the cable and telephone industry, and more handouts to wireless companies.

What was supposed to be a law to govern the public interest of the airwaves and telecommunications turned into a lobbyist feeding frenzy.  Consumers couldn’t afford the price of admission. Reopening the Communications Act means telecom companies from coast to coast can get busy working on their Christmas wish lists for the 500+ Secret Santas that live and work in the legislative branch of government these days, especially on the Republican side of the aisle.

Of course, the real outrage here is the FCC’s hope that the four companies can reach some agreement on contentious broadband issues and then the agency can do away with the entire matter of broadband regulatory reform.  Why fight the battle if you can compromise the issue away?  No matter what the four agree on, there are still many outstanding issues relating to consumer protection which cannot be negotiated by four corporate entities.

Those on both sides of the broadband regulatory issue are appalled at the secrecy.  Brett Glass, who opposes Net Neutrality and runs a WISP in Wyoming asked, “What happened to Chairman Genachowski’s promises of “the most open and transparent FCC ever?”

Indeed.

Lazarus tried his best to paper over the serious implications of holding secretive meetings in a blog post:

Senior Commission staff are making themselves available to meet with all interested parties on these issues. To the extent stakeholders discuss proposals with Commission staff regarding other approaches outside of the open proceedings at the Commission, the agency’s ex parte disclosure requirements are not applicable. But to promote transparency and keep the public informed, we will post notices of these meetings here at blog.broadband.gov. As always, our door is open to all ideas and all stakeholders.

In part, here was our response to Mr. Lazarus:

There is no transparency or openness in closed-door meetings that bar the public from participation. It’s just more of the same inside-the-beltway deal-making that will undercut consumers. Believe it or not, there is more at stake here than whatever issues Verizon, AT&T, Google, and eBay have to discuss.

And what if the four agreed on anything (improbable)? Does that mean the rest of us are expected to go along to get along?

The FCC’s door is -not- open to all ideas and stakeholders when the chairman’s chief of staff only invites four voices to his table.

There is nothing open and transparent about secret meetings peppered with excuses about why disclosure rules do not apply.

[Update 10:30am ET Wednesday -- The DailyFinance quotes a government source: "We fu*ked up," a government source familiar with the meetings told DailyFinance. "We deserve the bad press. It was a process foul at a minimum."]

Share/Save

As expected, the Federal Communications Commission today voted 3-2 along party lines to move forward with a Notice of Inquiry on Chairman Julius Genachowski’s proposed “third way” of “light touch” regulation to restore the agency’s authority over broadband matters.

A Democratic majority approved Genachowski’s proposal after debate among Commission members.  Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps, long critical of the Bush Administration’s efforts to deregulate broadband, was among the most forceful in calling for some oversight over the industry.  Copps contended that the Bush Administration bent over backwards for large telecommunications companies in unprecedented ways, even stripping away basic consumer protection policies relating to privacy and billing.  The result, he contends, has been a disaster for broadband consumers.

“We need to reclaim our authority,” said Copps. “I, for one, am worried about relying only on the good will of a few powerful companies to achieve this country’s broadband hopes and dreams.”

Copps dismissed rhetoric from industry groups in opposition to the proposal, claiming broadband oversight was not a government takeover or regulation of the Internet.

“We are not talking, even remotely, about regulating the Internet,” Copps said. “We are talking about meaningful oversight of the infrastructure and services that allow Americans to get to the Internet.”

Genachowski’s proposal would correct flawed policy enabled by former Bush Administration FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who supported the classification of broadband as an “information service.”  Powell claimed that classification would include ancillary authority to back FCC enforcement.

That authority would be put to the test.

In 2007, Comcast secretly imposed speed restrictions on customers using peer-to-peer software.  Using the authority Powell claimed the agency had, the FCC ordered the broadband provider to cease and desist its speed throttling. Although Comcast discontinued the practice, replacing it with a 250 GB monthly data cap, the company also sued in federal court a year later, claiming the FCC’s broadband authority was flawed.

Earlier this year, the court agreed, ruling the FCC could not extend ancillary authority under its “information service” classification of broadband.  In that one decision, the FCC lost most, if not all of its oversight powers over broadband matters.

By reclassifying broadband as a “telecommunications service,” the Commission believes it can win back its oversight powers.  The Supreme Court, in an earlier case, upheld similar authority in another matter.

But telecommunications companies have claimed the proposed reclassification would subject broadband providers to 1930′s era regulations established for telephone landline companies.  They objected strongly to today’s vote.

Tom Tauke

Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president for public affairs, policy and communications said, “Reclassifying high-speed broadband Internet service as a telecom service is a terrible idea.  The negative consequences for online users and the Internet ecosystem would be severe and have ramifications for decades.  It is difficult to understand why the FCC continues to consider this option.”

Tauke, along with several other phone and cable companies have asked the Commission to turn the matter over to Congress.  Tauke referenced the industry-backed effort that secured nearly 300 signatures from members of Congress opposing reclassification.

But industry critics contend turning the matter over to a polarized Congress would represent a delay at best.  At worst, it could open the door to even more industry-backed, campaign contribution-fueled deregulation.

“There is a real urgency to this because right now there are no rules of the road to protect consumers from even the most egregious discriminatory behavior by telephone and cable companies,” said Markham Erickson, executive director of the Open Internet Coalition, which includes Internet heavyweights like Google and Amazon.com.

Aparna Sridhar, Free Press’ policy counsel said, “The FCC’s Third Way proposal presents a measured response to a problem created by a Comcast lawsuit: Without restoring its authority over broadband, the Commission won’t be able to bring broadband to rural and low-income Americans or promote policies that encourage innovation, creativity, free speech and job creation online. These are goals that we can all agree on, and we support the Commission’s effort to achieve them by first establishing a sound legal foundation for its policies.”

Republican commissioners largely adopted the broadband industry position that any additional regulation would harm investment and hurt consumers.

“I recognize that industry alone will not solve every challenge and no commercial market is perfect, but I fear that a more proactive broadband regulatory approach would adversely affect consumers, competition, and investment,” said Republican Commissioner Meredith Baker, who voted against the proposal.

At least one Republican congressman went all out for the industry in a letter to Genachowski that accused him of engaging in a “blind power grab.”

“Despite overwhelming opposition within a Congress that possesses the actual authority that the FCC covets, the Commission now inexplicably appears poised on Thursday to take another misguided leap towards its investment-suffocating attempt to regulate broadband providers as common carriers,” Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan) wrote.

Upton counts AT&T among his top-five contributors, giving the congressman and his leadership PAC $20,000.  Upton also accepted $15,000 from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, $10,250 from Verizon, $10,000 from Comcast, and $7,500 from Deutsche Telekom, owner of T-Mobile.

Despite all the rhetoric, at least one carrier was forced to live under most of the rules Genachowski proposes for all of America’s broadband providers, with little difficulty.  AT&T agreed to maintain a Net Neutral policy from 2006-2009 as part of its merger agreements with SBC and BellSouth.  While doing so, the company increased investments in deploying its IPTV service U-verse, which included better broadband service for U-verse customers.

Stop the Cap! will provide detailed instructions on how to submit comments to the FCC as part of today’s Notice of Inquiry soon and will hopefully have video of today’s event up shortly.

Share/Save

LUS Fiber is a municipally-owned provider competing in Lafayette, Louisiana

Lafayette Utility Systems’ LUS Fiber has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Communications Commission accusing the cable industry co-op of blocking the company from getting the favorable discounts and access to cable networks its competitor Cox Cable receives.

LUS Fiber Director Terry Huval said the blockade against LUS Fiber could ultimately cost the city millions and deny subscribers access to popular cable networks.  Huval accused its rival, Cox Cable, of being behind the repeated denials of membership for the Louisiana municipal cable system.

The municipal provider issued a news release stating that its complaint to the FCC originally was joined by municipal providers in Wilson, N.C., and Chattanooga, Tenn., but the National Cable Television Cooperative has since admitted those systems, while keeping LUS Fiber out.

“The NCTC opened membership to two other municipally-owned telecommunications companies that are very similar to our own Lafayette operation and in the same week refused to admit us on the same terms and conditions,” Huval said. “The only difference among the three systems is that our major cable competitor is NCTC’s largest member as well as a member of NCTC’s board of directors.”

LUS Fiber's primary competitor is Cox Cable

The NCTC is critically important to many medium and small sized cable companies who together collectively bargain access and the best possible volume discounts for hundreds of cable networks and broadcasters.  Those discounts are substantial, considering only Comcast gets larger discounts than the NCTC’s group membership.  NCTC membership also frees members from the tedious one on one negotiations cable systems would otherwise be required to conduct to obtain and maintain agreements with cable programmers.

Keeping LUS Fiber out means the municipal provider could be left charging higher prices than Cox charges for cable-TV in Lafayette.

Federal law appears to be on the side of LUS Fiber as part of the 1992 Cable Act that consumer groups fought for:

It shall be unlawful for a cable operator, a satellite cable programming vendor in which a cable operator has an attributable interest, or a satellite broadcast programming vendor to engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the purpose or effect of which is to hinder significantly or to prevent any multichannel video programming distributor from providing satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming to subscribers or consumers.

The NCTC operates a spartan website at nctconline.org

As someone who personally was involved in the passage of that legislation, the ironic part is we were fighting -for- the NCTC back then.  Of course, those days the cooperative was made up of wireless cable providers, utility co-ops, municipal co-ops, and other independent cable systems that were constantly facing outright refusals for access to cable programming or discriminatory pricing.  Satellite dish-owners were also regularly targeted.  NCTC was a friendly group in the early 1990s but has since become dominated with larger corporate cable operators, especially Cox Cable and Charter Communications.

LUS builds a compelling case:

NCTC and its dominant members have not only grown significantly in size and power, but they have become increasingly anti-competitive themselves. They are now undermining Congress’s pro-competitive intent by using denial of membership in NCTC as an anticompetitive device to insulate NCTC’s existing members from competition by new entrants.

Specifically, in 2007 and 2008, NCTC imposed a “moratorium” on new members, claiming that it needed time to review its membership policies. In late 2008, NCTC supposedly lifted the moratorium, posting new application procedures on its website. These procedures, NCTC stated, would ordinarily result in admissions within 60-120 days. LUS promptly applied for membership, furnishing all of the information that NCTC required. In reality, NCTC only lifted the moratorium for private-sector cable operators, including Cox and Charter. For LUS and other municipal cable operators, NCTC’s claim to be open to new memberships turned out to be little more than a deceptive sham.

In short, as of April 2010, despite publishing procedures suggesting that new members would be admitted within 120 days, NCTC had not admitted a single new public communications provider during the year and a half since it supposedly lifted its moratorium.

Without access to programming at competitive prices, no one would consider switching to a municipal provider that charged higher prices than the incumbent.  The NCTC’s increasingly secretive and erratic admission of new municipal members provides ample ammunition for those on the outside looking in to accuse the group of unfair practices.

Share/Save

A pro-consumer group has released a new report that refutes claims from the telecommunications industry that broadband reform represents an investment killer and takeover of the Internet by the Obama Administration.

Free Press this week challenging 10 of the wildest claims in its report, “The Truth About the Third Way: Separating Fact from Fiction in the FCC Reclassification Debate.” Aparna Sridhar, Free Press’ Policy Counsel used publicly available evidence to effectively debunk the multi-million dollar lobbying campaign to stop broadband reform.

Unfortunately, more than a handful in Congress have accepted those discredited claims as fact.  Free Press hopes truth will prevail over the enormous money-fueled opposition effort, especially as the FCC begins proceedings next week on its proposed “Third Way” approach to broadband oversight. The agency is expected to issue a Notice of Inquiry and to seek public comment on the issues of broadband reform and reclassification.

A sampling from the report, which we encourage you to read:

Fiction #3: Placing broadband services back under the Commission’s explicit authority will stifle investment in broadband networks.

Fact: The FCC’s proposed policy merely preserves the status quo prior to the recent uncertainty created by the federal appeals court ruling. As a result, it should have little to no effect on company investment decisions.

Many industry representatives and investment analysts have dismissed the notion that the FCC’s Third Way will deter investment. Furthermore, history contradicts the claim that applying some of the rules contained in Title II of the Communications Act to broadband service providers (as the Commission has proposed) will adversely affect investment in the networks. Telecommunications industry investments soared during the period when carriers were subject to the full panoply of rules contained in Title II. Investments only began decreasing once the FCC began dismantling many of the pro-competition rules stemming from this part of the Communications Act.

As we've said at Stop the Cap! for two years now, providers' investments in upgrading and expanding their networks are declining, even as demand (and prices) for those services are increasing.

Fiction #4: Placing broadband services back under the FCC’s explicit authority will lead to job losses in the telecom sector.

Fact: The telecommunications sector accelerated its job-shedding following industry consolidation and FCC deregulation, a trend that continues unabated even as company revenues reach historic highs.

The notion that the FCC’s move to re-establish its authority over broadband networks will harm employment is also nothing more than unsupported rhetoric. The simple reality is this sector accelerated its job-shedding following industry consolidation and FCC deregulation. And this trend continued even as overall revenues in the sector continued to expand. Unfortunately, the underlying market economics and company statements suggest this trend will continue regardless of how the FCC acts on the regulatory authority question.

So much for the argument that regulation will cause job losses. As this plainly illustrates, even as profits fatten at AT&T, Qwest and Verizon, employment numbers are on a steep decline in today's deregulated marketplace.

Fiction # 7: The FCC’s Third Way proposal is an unprecedented power-grab which departs from Congress’s intent to leave the Internet unregulated.

Fact: The FCC’s proposal will bring the Commission’s approach to broadband networks in harmony with longstanding principles in communications policy. The law always has recognized a distinction between communications infrastructure (like broadband networks) and the content that travels over that infrastructure (such as websites on the Internet). In fact, it was the Powell FCC’s decision to abandon oversight over broadband networks that represented a radical and irresponsible shift — by treating basic connectivity services just like content, the Powell FCC undermined the Commission ability to make pro-competitive, pro-consumer policies in the broadband space. This FCC’s proposal would return to the first principles of communications policy that fostered innovation, competition and investment in the first place.

Fiction #8: The FCC’s proposal would amount to a “government takeover of the Internet.”

Fact: The FCC’s proposal would draw a line between basic two-way communications — which have always been regulated by the FCC — and Internet applications and websites, which would remain unregulated by the FCC. None of the parties in the debate before the FCC have suggested that the FCC impose any kind of content regulation on the Internet. Nor has anyone suggested that the government take over the physical infrastructure that forms the Internet. Rather, the FCC is proposing to apply some basic, light-touch rules of the road to the owners of broadband networks.

These rules will attempt to encourage private investment, promote competition, and foster innovation, economic growth, and job creation. Further, restoring its regulatory framework back in harmony with the law will insure the FCC has basic consumer protection authority.

Share/Save

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other restrictions:

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

Also, you must agree to the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to view the embedded video.

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

Share/Save

Walt Mossberg (left) discusses the current state of American broadband with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski (right)

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowki told attendees at the D: All Things Digital conference America scores dead last in a study measuring the rate of change in broadband innovation.  American broadband is stuck in neutral while every other ranked nation is moving forward faster in understanding the importance of deploying fast, reliable, and universal broadband.  Genachowski directly ties broadband to improving local economies, propelling growth in jobs, and improving education and health care.

Unfortunately the American duopoly most Americans cope with maintains a stranglehold on efforts to bring America literally up to speed with competing nations.  Worse, there is no end in sight as long as America relies entirely on incumbent providers to get the job done.

Americans pay some of the highest prices in the world for mediocre broadband, and it’s only getting worse with the introduction of usage limiting schemes like data caps and so-called consumption billing.

Genachowski is attempting to facilitate improved broadband across the United States, but is hampered by private industry undermining the FCC’s authority to help push improvements forward.  Recent industry-driven court challenges to the FCC’s authority have led to the agency seeking a different path to regain its regulatory footing.

The FCC chairman sees the biggest challenges coming in wireless broadband, where a spectrum shortage is limiting potential capacity and available bandwidth.  Genachowski seeks an accommodation with the nation’s television stations to relinquish UHF spectrum where possible to bolster wireless networks.

Conference host Walt Mossberg challenged Genachowski on why more isn’t getting done and why accepting the current state of the marketplace is acceptable.  He also criticized providers for charging high prices for slow service and attacked Comcast for its set top box, claiming if there was an open market for these things, no one would buy it, that it would be the worst thing on the shelf.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Excerpts from FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s visit with Walt Mossberg at the June 2nd D: All Things Digital conference.  (6 minutes)

Share/Save

The CTIA is the wireless industry's lobbying group

While the phone and cable companies attempt to fight off broadband reclassification at the FCC, the wireless industry has been pulling its own weight in an effort to convince legislators everything is wonderful in wireless, and no consumer protection regulations are necessary.

The CTIA, the wireless lobbying group, has been blogging on overdrive lately, trying to sell the idea Americans are already soaking in broadband options and competition that keeps prices low and innovation high.  Why regulate an industry that isn’t broken?

If only it were true.

While Americans in larger communities do have choices for broadband, for most it’s a matter of picking the phone or cable company for service.  That’s called a duopoly.  In the wireless marketplace, it’s hardly much better.  The nation’s largest wireless phone companies, AT&T and Verizon, have essentially colluded with near-identical pricing and service plan requirements that demand customers add mandatory “options” like data plan add-ons that raise wireless bills higher than ever.

The smaller providers eke out an existence mildly competing over pricing, but with their inherent coverage limitations or history of providing poor customer service, many consumers won’t consider doing business with them.  Relying on most wireless providers for broadband threatens the kind of huge bills you see on TV news reports, as carriers limit consumption to 5GB per month, and most charge enormous overlimit fees to customers exceeding the limit.

The Federal Communications Commission recently found one in every six Americans suffer “bill shock” syndrome — that all-too-familiar panicky feeling when you open a cell phone bill and discover an extra zero on the end of the dollar amount due.  More than a third of people who experienced bill shock said their bills jumped by at least $50 — around 23 percent said the increase was $100 or more.

Settles

That amounts to more than 30 million Americans, but the CTIA’s “see no evil, hear no evil” blog carries on claiming life is good for wireless consumers.  Besides, writes Steve Largent, president of the CTIA, consumers who took their complaints to the Better Business Bureau had them resolved 97.4 percent of the time.

Of course, that begs the question why consumers had to approach the BBB about their poor service experience in the first place.

I’m not the only one asking questions.  Craig Settles, an industry analyst, co-administrator of Communities United for Broadband and author of the report “Fighting the Next Good Fight: Bringing True Broadband to Your Community,” is also pondering the industry campaign to block broadband reform.

Settles penned a piece in today’s Roll Call exposing the fallacies from the industry’s PR machine:

The state of broadband — for consumers, businesses and nonprofits — isn’t the rosy picture the industry powerhouses attempt to paint. Ignoring this reality can lead to bad policy decisions and bad legislation.

[...]

Most states may technically have 60 to 80 Internet access providers. However, in practically every state, the combined statewide market share of all but the top five or six providers might total 5 percent, if you’re lucky. In at least half of the states, data show the combined market share of the top two providers ranges from 70 percent up to 95 percent. That represents near or actual duopolies, most often with one wireless and one cable provider as the undynamic duo.

Life at the local level, which is where your true subscriber options exist, further challenges the industry’s claim that people have choices. If you count “having choices” as living in an area where several companies advertise broadband service, or consider dial-up speed as broadband, OK.

But go door to door in rural counties and small towns. The reality you often find is one major carrier providing fair to poor service to some and no service to the rest, plus some small local providers with 2 percent or 3 percent market share struggling to provide decent service in the face of endless efforts to smite them from the planet. If you’re in one of the few states with four or five providers that each have statewide market share of 8 percent to 15 percent, it’s likely each provider is concentrated in a portion of the state, creating a local reality that’s worse than state statistics.

Settles notes that claims of “billions invested” only invites more questions about what carriers are doing with all that money.  Settles questions whether its wise to brag about spending $20 billion on infrastructure costs when municipal broadband projects in states like North Carolina, with IT staffs of fewer than 12, have built superior networks delivering 10 times the speed of its competitors.

The CTIA loves to tout the innovation wireless providers bring to customers, but in many cases they are claiming credit (and often getting a cut in the action) for someone else’s innovation, especially from the third-party apps market.

Too often the real innovations in wireless broadband have often come in spite of carriers that have sought to block, control, or “manage” someone else’s vision.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Watch as the CTIA wireless lobby tries to sell Americans on wireless innovation, much of which didn’t come from wireless companies at all.  (1 minute)

Share/Save

Click here to view the embedded video.

Congress doesn’t seem to know right from wrong, but we do.

It’s not right when big insurance companies write health care laws when millions can’t afford to see a doctor.

It’s not right when big oil companies write energy laws as gas prices skyrocket.

It’s not right when Congress passes trade bills that send our jobs overseas.

Congress won’t change until we change the people we’re sending to Washington.

–Rep. Heath Shuler’s 2006 campaign commercial

That was less than four years ago.  Apparently these days Rep. Heath Shuler (D-North Carolina) believes it -is- right for large telecommunications companies to censor online content, slow down Internet services they don’t want you to use, and allow the phone and cable industry to control broadband policies in this country.

Shuler’s abandonment of his mountain values was made easier with $23,000 in campaign contributions from a grateful industry.

Shuler

When those telecom checks cleared the bank, Shuler went to work for big telecom companies, becoming a leading opponent of consumer-friendly Net Neutrality.

For his supporters who once had high hopes for the Democratic congressman first elected in 2006, it’s been one disappointment after another.

Last fall, Shuler was a co-signer of a letter to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski opposing Net Neutrality.  To reiterate the point, many of the same co-signers of last fall’s letter were back on board with a second letter sent last month.

The latest letter was a godsend to AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and other Net Neutrality opponents who are using it to suggest there is considerable bipartisan opposition to broadband reform.

Many of his constituents are not impressed with Shuler’s legislative record these days.  One of them is Dave Houck:

I have long since had it with Mr. Shuler.  I admit it, I have no more patience for him.

[...]

I campaigned for you, and phone banked for you, and made cash contributions.  Today I find out that you are against net neutrality, that you signed a letter to the FCC Chairman supporting AT&T and other large corporations — choosing corporations over the people.

In 2010 I will be voting for anybody who runs against you, Democrat or Republican, as you have consistently demonstrated in the three years you have been in Congress that you are quite simply not up to the job of representing the people of Western North Carolina.  You and the “Blue Dog Coalition” are surrogates for corporate interests; you do not have the interests of the people of North Carolina at heart.  Or at least that’s the message you are sending to me.

I’m just fed up.

North Carolina's 11th District is currently served by Rep. Heath Shuler

Similar sentiments from upset residents in his district are voiced all over Shuler’s Facebook page.  Why not add yours?

Then give his office a call or drop him an e-mail.

Ask Rep. Shuler how standing with big phone and cable companies against consumer broadband protection could ever represent western North Carolina mountain values.

Tell him trusting AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable with our broadband future is like trusting BP to protect the Gulf Coast.

Let him know you were disappointed with his decision to sign the first letter opposing Net Neutrality last fall, but now you are simply appalled he’s done it again.

It’s not right when big phone and cable companies have the power to write their own legislation and stop pro-consumer protections like Net Neutrality.  Where is the Rep. Shuler who campaigned on doing the right thing in 2006?

If Shuler won’t change his mind on an issue as important as this, perhaps we need to take his own advice and change the person the 11th district sends to Congress.

Share/Save

The Denver Post this morning did a major disservice to its readers in a heavily slanted editorial objecting to the reclassification of broadband service to restore the FCC’s traditional oversight authority over Internet providers.

In their piece For Web and Broadband Regulation, Less is More, the editors at the Post delivered less facts and more industry talking points.  It even mislead readers by quoting from two Republican FCC commissioners, completely ignoring the Democratic majority that would likely prevail in a vote on the matter.

The editorial forgets to mention why this debate is taking place.  Readers should have been made aware the broadband industry the Post celebrates as successful under a light touch regulatory philosophy effectively-won total deregulation in a game changing court decision that stripped the FCC’s authority to provide checks and balances over today’s duopoly broadband market.

Ed Whitacre, AT&T

Comcast sued after the FCC punished the company for deliberately interfering with customers’ broadband speeds for certain Internet applications (despite Comcast’s initial denials).  The Post characterizes such behavior on the part of the nation’s largest cable company as “only a couple documented issues, which were quickly resolved.”  How does the Post think these were resolved?  The FCC used the authority it now no longer has to pressure Comcast to stop.  What stops the next “documented issue?”

AT&T’s former chairman and CEO Ed Whitacre gave Americans plenty to worry about in 2005 when the nation’s largest phone company infamously declared that popular web sites should not be expected to use AT&T’s “pipes for free.”  That attitude is still being defended today by millions of dollars in lobbying, fake grassroots astroturf campaigns, and industry bought-and-paid-for “research studies.”  Why spend all that money on a “resolved” issue?

But the most offensive part of the Post‘s piece was a completely dishonest attempt by the editors to imply there is widespread bipartisan opposition to common sense broadband regulation like Net Neutrality.

We had the opportunity Wednesday to talk with two FCC commissioners about the dual proposals for reform. They voiced concerns about an FCC move to redefine broadband networks as highly regulated telecommunications services.

Meredith Attwell Baker, who was nominated to the commission by President Obama, called the reclassification dangerous, adding it was a “brand new model.” FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell, nominated by President George W. Bush, worried about the unintended consequences that might come out of an additional layer of regulation.

On the right side of the Commission, the two Republican members Meredith Attwell Baker, a former telecom industry lobbyist and Robert M. McDowell.

How clever of the Denver Post to dangle the implication that Baker, being appointed by Obama, is somehow an ally.  She is not.  The Post only spoke with the two Republican minority commissioners for its editorial.  Atwell was appointed by Obama under long-standing FCC rules which require that only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party.  There is no practical difference between Atwell and McDowell.  Why didn’t the newspaper speak to at least one of the majority Democrats on the Commission, all of which are expected to support Chairman Genachowski?  Because that would have dramatically weakened the provider’s editor’s arguments and talking points.

Of course, there is nothing “brand new” about Title II authority.  It has been used successfully to oversee today’s increasingly deregulated landline marketplace to protect rural Americans who don’t have competitive choices should their phone company provide abysmal service.  What was new was the defective mechanism used by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, under the Bush Administration, to oversee broadband using what the courts determined was phantom authority.

There is nothing about those regulations “ill-suited” to restoring the FCC’s lost authority, which is the ultimate game plan here.  Providers have fed talking points, which editors at the Denver Post apparently devoured, suggesting everything from unintended consequences to the sky falling down should the FCC be able to implement its National Broadband Plan on its terms.  Providers want the power to control and implement broadband deployment on their terms — the same ones that have left millions without any real broadband options at all, and the rest of us with slow service at high prices.

We hope that process ends with succinct and limited rules that apply to broadband providers, but leave them relatively unfettered so the Internet continues to be a place for entrepreneurs, thinkers and dreamers to pursue their ideas.

These are all noble goals, but they cannot be achieved if a handful of giant broadband providers start extorting fees from content producers and engaging in other abusive behaviors.  The Post seems to think America is a world-leader in broadband, yet we are not.  This country is now handily beaten by several Asian nations and even cities within the former Soviet Union and its east European bloc.  Just this week Ookla released a speed index report that tells the truth about America’s broadband experience:

Here are the top 10 U.S. cities and their corresponding 30-day average speeds:

1. San Jose, Calif. 15.02 Mbps
2. Saint Paul, Minn. 14.53 Mbps
3. Pittsburgh, Pa. 14.18 Mbps
4. Oklahoma City, Okla. 12.12 Mbps
5. Brooklyn, N.Y. 12.10 Mbps
6. Tampa, Fla. 12.05 Mbps
7. Bronx, N.Y. 12.01 Mbps
8. New York, N.Y. 11.85 Mbps
9. Denver, Colo. 11.68 Mbps
10. Sacramento, Calif. 11.34 Mbps

The global top 10:

1. Seoul, South Korea 34.49 Mbps
2. Riga, Latvia 27.88 Mbps
3. Hamburg, Germany 26.85 Mbps
4. Chisinau, Republic of Moldova 24.31 Mbps
5. Helsinki, Finland 20.58 Mbps Mbps
6. Stockholm, Sweden 19.97 Mbps
7. Bucharest, Romania 19.68 Mbps
8. Sofia, Bulgaria 18.99 Mbps
9. Kharkov, Ukraine 18.15 Mbps
10. Kaunas, Lithuania 17.46 Mbps

With evidence like this, the editors at the Post need to get out from behind those telecom talking points and visit today’s real broadband world.

Share/Save

Take the money and run

The Federal Communications Commission’s approval of Frontier’s takeover of 4.8 million Verizon landline customers in 14 states comes a year after the company announced the deal.  Frontier joins three other independent phone companies — FairPoint Communications, Windstream Communications, and CenturyLink zealously trying to grow their companies with additional mergers and acquisitions to avoid being swallowed up themselves.

What is common among all four companies is they rely heavily on dividend payouts to keep their stock price as high as possible.  That was a formula for disaster for FairPoint, the first of the four to end up in bankruptcy after a similar deal with Verizon in northern New England caused the company to falter.  Service and billing deteriorated, customers fled, and promises for better broadband were broken.  Now Frontier is following in FairPoint’s footsteps with more than 4.8 million new customers Frontier hopes they can swallow.

The FCC’s statement approving the merger reads like a press release for all involved, and delighted FCC Chairman Genachowski, who called these meager requirements “robust”:

Coming one week after the final state approval for the transaction, the FCC’s Order holds the applicants, Verizon and Frontier, to enforceable voluntary commitments, including:

• Extend faster broadband to more Americans: Frontier will significantly increase broadband deployment for the lines involved in this transaction, only 62 percent of which are broadband-capable today. Specifically, Frontier will deploy broadband with actual speeds of at least 3 Mbps downstream to at least 85 percent of transferred lines by the end of 2013, and actual speeds of at least 4 Mbps downstream to at least 85 percent of the transferred lines by the end of 2015, with all new broadband deployment offering actual speeds of at least 1 Mbps upstream.

Frontier's Fast One: 3 Mbps DSL Service with a 5GB Monthly Usage Allowance

Frontier’s broadband commitment gives the company a full five years to meet the bare minimum speed considered to constitute broadband in the National Broadband Plan.  One hopes Frontier doesn’t break into a sweat offering a piddly 3 Mbps service to homes using yesterday’s DSL service until then.  While Verizon’s rural castoffs get stuck eventually with 4 Mbps DSL, many of the company’s remaining customers are enjoying 50Mbps service over an all fiber network.  The FCC is accepting an urban-rural divide for broadband which will benefit the phone companies while leaving rural customers in the dirt.

Deploy fiber to libraries, hospitals, and other anchor institutions: Frontier will launch an anchor institution initiative to deploy fiber to libraries, hospitals, and government buildings, particularly in unserved and underserved communities.

Fiber for these locations sure, but no fiber for you or I.  Frontier, like most other telecom companies, loves to promote the benefits of fiber without actually deploying it to homes.

Promote competition: Frontier and Verizon have made a series of commitments to protect wholesale customers, including honoring all obligations under Verizon’s current wholesale arrangements that are in effect at closing.

Since wholesale customers often depend on the same network other customers do, if a company doesn’t deliver robust broadband into a state like West Virginia, there isn’t a robust service to sell to those wholesalers.

Improve data quality and collection: Frontier will make available to the Commission data on its broadband deployment progress at an unprecedented level of detail to enable effective monitoring of Frontier’s compliance with its commitments.

The Commission concluded that the commitments that applicants have offered, coupled with monitoring and enforcement by the Commission, will minimize the risks of harm and ensure that this transaction is in the public interest.

Phillip "Living on the Frontier" Dampier

Considering how weakly the FCC is committing itself to protecting rural customers from being dumped into the broadband backwater Frontier has on offer (complete with the 5GB monthly usage allowance), does collecting statistics help when things go sour?  Regulators collected statistics in New England when FairPoint failed, but that didn’t get service levels back until Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont threatened to toss FairPoint out.  Now the company is in bankruptcy and regulators are negotiating which of the promises FairPoint made can be let go ‘for the sake of the company.’

That’s why it’s so ironic to read editorials that proclaim the FCC is on some sort of power grab when they seek to restore what meager authority they exercised over broadband before a DC Court effectively excluded broadband oversight from their portfolio.

It will be a good day when federal agencies like the FCC start worrying first and foremost about consumers instead of how to make a parade of overpriced mergers and acquisitions succeed for the companies involved.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WANE-TV in Fort Wayne warns viewers their landline company is about to change asVerizon vacates the area by July 1st.  (1 minute)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Too late.  The Communications Workers of America ran this ad spot asking the West Virginia governor to intervene and stop the sale.  (1 minute)

Share/Save

Rep. Dan Maffei (D-NY)

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York's 25th Congressional District

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Rep. Maffei:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rep. Dan Maffei’s Contact Information

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

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

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

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

Share/Save

The days of AT&T’s exclusive American distribution of Apple’s iPhone are dwindling, but the mobile phone provider wants to make sure you tough it out with AT&T even after the iPhone becomes available from Verizon Wireless.  If you don’t, AT&T will charge you $325 to break your two-year contract.

Effective June 1st, AT&T’s near-doubling of its early termination fee from $175 to $325 for smartphones is a shot across the bow of regulators already annoyed with cell company fees.  But aggravating the FCC and Congress may be worth it if it means locking millions of AT&T customers into new contracts expected to be signed with the release of the next generation iPhone due next month.  AT&T is making it even easier by “upgrading” many current iPhone accounts to qualify for the latest phone at the new customer price… with another two year service contract.

AT&T claims the new fee more fairly represents the cost of subsidizing increasingly popular smartphones, and the fee will decrease by $10 for every month you stay over the life of your contract.  Without the subsidy, customers would pay nearly $600 for a phone AT&T reduces in price to $199 with a two year contract.  But companies like AT&T earn back the subsidy and then some from the monthly service plan fees collected over the life of a two year contract.  Customers who bring their own unsubsidized phones to AT&T get no benefit from doing so — they pay the same artificially higher prices subsidized phone owners pay.

AT&T also announced it was slightly reducing the cancellation fee for its basic phones by $25 to $150, decreasing by $4 every month a customer remains with AT&T.  That’s not much of a concession considering many basic cell phone users are dumping contract cell phone service plans for prepaid service, where significant savings can be had.

“It is ironic indeed that news of AT&T’s early termination fee hike falls one day after the FCC’s report on the wireless industry highlighted the substantial obstacles to effective competition and the restricting effect this has had on consumer choice, service quality and price, said M. Chris Riley, Free Press policy counsel. “AT&T’s move to further price-gouge consumers is evidence of its market dominance and the need for real reform of wireless markets. The FCC needs to take action to spur competition, which will lead to lower prices and more choices for consumers who don’t wish to be bogged down in long-term contracts.”

Holding customers to two year contracts dramatically reduces subscriber churn — the practice of customers jumping from one phone carrier to another.  That means stable revenue and reduced marketing expenses aimed at signing up new customers.

Verizon Wireless already doubled their early termination fee from $175 to $350 last November.

On Friday, AT&T released an “open letter” to customers which was written as if to suggest the increased fees benefited consumers:

Share/Save

One of the lesser-known implications of broadband reform includes major changes to the Universal Service Fund (USF), a program that collects a few dollars a month from every phone customer to help subsidize the costs of delivering service to rural America.  As traditional phone lines become ever less important, a proposal to begin applying USF charges to broadband service has gotten increasing attention from conservatives who oppose the program, calling it a new “tax on broadband.”

The need for USF subsidies on rural telephone service continues to decline along with the number of landline customers.  Over the history of the program, repeated abuses have been documented which have diverted funding into cell phones for school administrators, telecommunications services in decidedly non-poor or rural areas, and steering vendor contracts to providers that kick money, trips, or other gifts back to decision makers.  With the FCC increasing the USF subsidy rate to 15.3 percent for the second quarter of 2010, an enormous amount of money is at stake, available for qualified programs.

So much money is available, some companies are building USF funding into their business plans.  Independent rural telephone companies can make a killing on USF subsidies, which are targeted precisely at their service areas.  But now cell phone companies have begun riding the USF gravy train, and are now marketing products and services that would be impossible to provide without USF funding.

One of the most controversial programs is free cellphones for income-challenged Americans, a program that first appeared during the Bush Administration, made possible by the Universal Service Fund.

To qualify, subscribers must either have an income that is at or below 135% of the federal Poverty Guidelines, or participate in one of the following assistance programs:

• Medicaid,
• Food Stamps,
• Supplemental Security Income (SSI),
• Federal Public Housing Assistance (Section 8),
• Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP),
• Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), or
• The National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program

An extension of Lifeline and Link-Up, the free cell phone program has been extended to more than a dozen states by providers like TracFone’s SafeLink Wireless or Sprint’s Assurance Wireless.

Safelink provides qualified customers with free ($50 value) Motorola cell phones and free calling with no contract requirement.  They also receive free texting, national/international calling, voicemail, caller ID, and call waiting.

“A telephone service, just in general, is not a privilege, it’s a right, and we feel it’s a corporate responsibility to provide it,” says José Fuentes, TracFone’s director of government relations. “Everyone should be in contact, should have the opportunity to get a phone call, especially if it’s an employer.”

Fuentes may be right, but TracFone’s altruism is made considerably easier when the federal government is picking up the majority of the tab every month.  USF funding contributes $10 of the estimated $13.50 the service actually costs to provide.

Traditional Lifeline landline service has been a part of American life for decades, but the prospect of welfare recipients getting free cell phones is ready-made for demagoguery in the media.  A common meme is that the program represents more “Obama socialism,” despite the fact the program began under the previous administration, and there may be nothing inherently wrong with extending Lifeline service to an increasingly wireless world.

What this really represents is the opportunity to consider different approaches to funding subsidy programs.  For example, would such programs like cell phone subsidies be better served if they were funded by the carriers themselves as part of spectrum auction proceeds?  Is the FCC trying to substantiate the need for continued USF spending by expanding the number of projects and programs qualified to receive funding?  Is 15.3 percent a fair amount to charge telephone ratepayers?

Under the FCC’s proposed Broadband Plan for America, USF fees would be collected from and largely diverted to broadband service.  Rural America would get broadband service at a price comparable to what big city residents pay, and providers could substantiate the return on investment to begin constructing such projects partly subsidized by USF funding.

But that means the price of your broadband service will increase and some consumers don’t like it.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WLOS-TV in Asheville, North Carolina reports on concerns about a forthcoming proposed broadband tax.  (2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

WGRZ-TV in Buffalo covers the free cell phone angle as residents see ads from companies like Assurance Wireless that offer free cell phones to income-challenged Americans. (2 minutes)

Share/Save

NoNetBrutality characterizes itself as a "grassroots campaign," but new evidence suggests it's actually just another telecom industry-backed astroturf group pretending to represent consumer interests.

On April 12th, a new voice joined the opposition to Net Neutrality reforms.  That was the date someone registered the domain name NoNetBrutality.com.  Just a few short days later, the group launched a basic website with a mission:

NoNetBrutality.com is a grassroots campaign with a triple mission. It seeks:

(1) to raise public awareness for the imminent threat of government take-over of the internet,
(2) to bring all net neutrality opponents together under one common banner,
(3) to petition the FCC not to go ahead with its attempts to regulate the internet.

NoNetBrutality.com was initiated by six liberty-minded activists from six different countries who fear that the current attempts of the U.S. government to restrict access to the internet might soon be followed by other governments if we don’t fight these flawed and dangerous ideas now – before they take root elsewhere.

The NoNetBrutality.com campaign was created by Kristin McMurray (United States), Yolanda Talavera (Nicaragua), Vincent De Roeck (Belgium), David MacLean (Canada), Huafang Li (China) and Aykhan Nasibli (Azerbaidjan), and formally launched in Washington D.C. on April 14th, 2010.

The group’s talking points about Net Neutrality are eerily in lockstep with those distributed by large phone and cable interests who oppose net freedom:

Net neutrality will take away incentives to invest and innovate – that means the internet will stop improving. Do you really want an internet czar to run the worldwide web and bureaucrats in charge of cyberspace?

Net neutrality will literally put the internet in “neutral.” Demand for Youtube, Bittorrent and streaming will grow, but who will pay for additional bandwidth if they aren’t allowed to charge for it anymore? Less options and less freedom for the consumers will be the ultimate consequence of these flawed ideas.

The FCC and others aim to regulate the internet in the same way as they control the television… There’s the real censorship! What will be the next step? Once the government has the mechanism in place to restrict internet access and to set prices, it is only a tiny step towards content control and taxes on internet use.

Everybody agrees that the internet is a resounding free market success story. If it isn’t broken, why fix it?

You know what that means — that “grassroots campaign” is in reality yet another corporate-backed astroturf campaign desperately trying to hide its true backer — the telecommunications industry.

Here’s what NoNetBrutality left out of its “facts”:

1. YouTube is owned by Google, which is a strong believer in Net Neutrality.
2. No online service has suffered more at the hands of Internet Service Providers’ throttles than Bittorrent.  Net Neutrality would ban those throttles.
3. The group ignores the multi-billion dollars in profit the broadband industry earns today from Internet service that is increasing in price at the same time costs to provide it are rapidly falling.
4. The FCC proposes no content controls for broadband — only consumer protections to prohibit providers from manipulating broadband traffic for money.
5. Everyone does not agree that the Internet is a “resounding free market success story.”  In fact, the United States has lost its former lead on Internet speed and adoption, and today is still dropping.  We now have worse service than many Asian and East European countries, and providers are trying to test new Internet Overcharging schemes t0 limit consumption and increase prices even higher.  That’s success?  Only for them.

So who is NoNetBrutality.com and Kristin McMurray, the American creator of the campaign?

McMurray's day job is to develop and run social media campaigns for corporate interests seeking to build support for their public policy agenda

Kristin McMurray is a social media strategist — a hired gun for corporate interests that want social-network-street-cred but don’t exactly know how to create an authentic-looking campaign that fulfills their corporate agenda.

McMurray has a history with corporate-backed conservative think tanks, particularly Americans for Limited Government, a group the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity reports is 99 percent funded by three unnamed sources.  The group has routinely denied requests to identify where their backing comes from.  She also was hired to run a campaign for a climate change denial group.

McMurray tracks her site visitors carefully with Alterian’s SM2, a social media monitoring and analysis solution designed for PR and Marketing professionals. Alterian SM2 “helps you track conversations, review positive/negative sentiment for your brand, clients, competitors and partners across social media channels such as blogs, wikis, micro-blogs, social networks, video/photo sharing sites and real-time alerts.”

Grassroots this isn’t.

Accidental Evidence: The Consequences of An Exposed PowerPoint Presentation

Someone left their PowerPoint slides laying around for anyone to pick up and review.  That turned out to be about as foolish as the guy who left his field test version of Apple’s newest iPhone in a bar.

Now the truth can be told.

Think Progress managed to obtain a copy of the presentation, and it says quite a bit about just how much grassroots are actually growing at NoNetBrutality.com.  Let’s put it this way, if you were allergic to actual grass, you’d have no problems at all rolling around in NoNetBrutality’s astroturf.

It turns out NoNetBrutality is the creature of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation and Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, itself heavily backed by corporate interests.

And you thought it was “six liberty-minded activists from six different countries.”  Not so much.

Atlas, which counts among its proud moments a corporate strategy to protect Big Tobacco, helps corporations coordinate their front group strategies.  Norquist takes corporate agendas and spins them into grass roots efforts in return for money.  He was caught up in the Jack Abramoff scandal when the disgraced lobbyist promised one of Norquist’s front groups $50,000 in exchange for “grassroots” support.

Of course, you aren’t supposed to know any of this.  Groups like NoNetBrutality are designed to hide their true ties and claim they are run by ordinary concerned citizens making their individual voices heard.  Too bad that PowerPoint presentation blew the lid off by telling a much different story.

One of the PowerPoint slides that wasn't supposed to become public knowledge

Net Neutrality is like what China does: “Putting policemen on every corner, on the street or on the Internet.” — Grover Norquist

Norquist’s bizarre interpretation of Net Neutrality shines through in NoNetBrutality’s own campaign.  On one of the PowerPoint slides, NoNetBrutality even cooks up a Chinese blog to underline Norquist’s world view that Net Neutrality can be compared with Chinese government censorship.

Every astroturf group has a target audience.  NoNetBrutality is no different:

Target Groups

• Libertarian like minded Internet users and video gamers
• Fiscal and Social Conservative Activists, Campaigners and Think Tanks
• Internet Service Providers and Communications companies
• Policy makers (Legislators, Regulators, Public officials)

For groups like NoNetBrutality, getting corporate and conservative support means being a cog in the wheel at Grover’s infamous Wednesday strategy sessions.  One of the PowerPoint slides calls attention to just how important these meetings are in the effort to coordinate opposition to consumer-friendly broadband reform.

Now that the cat is out of the bag, outraged consumers have invaded the group’s primary social media outlets.  Their Facebook page is now loaded with comments from those upset about the fact the entire effort is little more than another bought-and-paid-for deception effort from the telecom industry.  Twitter is now used more to expose the group than to promote it.

The ironic part is that the very group that seems so alarmed by the prospect of “government censorship of the Internet” has no problems censoring its own Facebook page to remove posts that it determines are “off topic” or “not polite.”

[Update Wednesday 3:20pm -- This "group" came out of the closet this morning as a "class project" funded by Atlas, and attacked Think Progress for overreaching as to the group's own importance in the Net Neutrality debate.  You can read my extended thoughts on today's developments in the Comments section.  In short, I think today's revelations may actually do even more damage to their credibility than earlier thought.  What does it say about a group of people willing to attend a "school" (and the "school" itself) that actively teaches how to develop and launch highly-deceptive fake grassroots campaigns designed to fool consumers?  Today they are downplaying the entire affair as "funny," but if you were a visitor to their website, would you be laughing to learn the group isn't really run by "six liberty-minded activists from six different countries" but rather those budding to learn the craft of sock-puppetry?

I think it's sad some people have a moral code that says intentional deception in a public policy fight is just fine.  When you lie to your supporters and opponents about who you really are, and then say it's "funny" when you come clean later,  they are left with little more than to ponder whether you were lying to them then or lying to them now.]

Share/Save

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski has gotten the message.  After a report earlier this week in the Washington Post that the chairman was contemplating leaving broadband unregulated, without Net Neutrality protections, thousands of calls and e-mail messages poured into FCC headquarters protesting the report and asking for action.  Many also called their members of Congress and the White House demanding the administration keep its word on broadband reform policies.

Late Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal published news that Genachowski had apparently changed course:

In a move that will stoke a battle over the future of the Internet, the federal government plans to propose regulating broadband lines under decades-old rules designed for traditional phone networks.

The decision, by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski, is likely to trigger a vigorous lobbying battle, arraying big phone and cable companies and their allies on Capitol Hill against Silicon Valley giants and consumer advocates.

Breaking a deadlock within his agency, Mr. Genachowski is expected Thursday to outline his plan for regulating broadband lines. He wants to adopt “net neutrality” rules that require Internet providers like Comcast Corp. and AT&T Inc. to treat all traffic equally, and not to slow or block access to websites.

The Journal’s framing language about “decades-old rules” aside, the decision by the chairman to reclassify broadband as a “telecommunications service” was the only way forward for an agency who had its authority cut from beneath it by a recent court decision.

The news that Genachowski was considering leaving things as-is, totally deregulated, met with opposition from both leaders of the House and Senate Commerce Committees which have jurisdiction over the FCC.  Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California) and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) wrote Genachowski urging the Commission to consider “all viable options” to regain authority over broadband.  When Congress speaks, the FCC listens.

The Commission had two choices — keeping broadband “regulated” under Title I of the Telecommunications Act under the now court-discredited “information service” paradigm, or reclassifying it under Title II as a “telecommunications service,” where the Commission enjoys the prospect of already court-tested and approved authority to regulate.  Either way assured legal challenges, but under Title II the Commission faced just a single lawsuit to reaffirm its authority to regulate such services.  Under Title I, every reform attempted by the Commission would face provider lawsuits, with precedent on the side of the cable and phone companies to win.

Net Neutrality opponents claim the policy would be ruinous to broadband providers, but when SBC and AT&T merged into a new super-sized AT&T, the company agreed to adhere to Net Neutrality guidelines for two years and didn't suffer any ill effects.

The telecommunications industry and their allies have attempted to frame such reclassification as a government takeover or regulation of the Internet.  Some of these companies even threaten to challenge any reclassification as a violation of their First Amendment rights, an absurd notion for a company that transports content from third parties to its customers.  Since when does a provider get to assert ownership over speech from someone else?  It’s overreach like this that helped fuel the demand for Net Neutrality in the first place.  The policies the FCC seeks to enact as part of the National Broadband Plan, including Net Neutrality, do not regulate or “take over” the Internet — it guarantees that providers can’t block or control that content for monetary gain.

Genachowski is signaling he’s intent on reclassifying broadband not to saddle broadband providers with 1940s telephone regulations, but to assure the Commission and the Administration it can bring the National Broadband Plan to reality without provider roadblocks thrown up along the way.

Sources have leaked details to the media that suggest Genachowski will propose a novel “third way” of broadband reclassification — asserting the right to regulate broadband under Title II, but exempting broadband providers from most of the regulatory provisions that were written to deal with Ma Bell.  In other words, the changes would turn the clock back, before the DC Circuit Court threw out the FCC’s regulatory authority to spank Comcast for throttling its customers’ broadband speeds.  With Title II authority in place, Genachowski hopes a court hearing the same case would have found for the FCC, not against it.

The telecommunications industry has already gone over the top suggesting Genachowski’s plan represents Broadband Armageddon.

One of the industry’s good friends is Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada).  He has their talking points down word for word:

“Using this heavy-handed approach to regulation … will jeopardize private investment and innovation in broadband and inject regulatory uncertainty throughout the entire Internet,” Ensign said in a statement.

“We would expect a profoundly negative impact on capital investment,” warned Stanford Bernstein analyst and lover of big cable Craig Moffett in a research note to clients Wednesday night titled “The FCC Goes Nuclear.”

“The only potential winners are the satellite providers, DirecTV and Dish Network, for whom incremental broadband regulation would dramatically reduce the risk of competitive foreclosure in the video business at the hands of bottleneck broadband providers,” he wrote.

The hue and cry over any broadband regulations or court decisions unfavorable to the industry always results in claims it will “dry up investment,” “retard growth,” or downright ruin the Internet for everyone.

Some in the business press even suggest today’s unveiling of Genachowski’s “third way” represents uncharted waters for America’s broadband story.

But how soon they forget.

When SBC and AT&T won approval to merge, one of the conditions was that the new super-sized AT&T respect Net Neutrality concepts for a period of two years.  They agreed:

Net Neutrality
1 . Effective on the Merger Closing Date, and continuing for 30 months thereafter, AT&T/BellSouth will conduct business in a manner that comports with the principles set forth in the Commission’s Policy Statement, issued September 23, 2005 (FCC 05-151).

2. AT&T/BellSouth also commits that it will maintain a neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet access service. 15 This’ commitment shall be satisfied by AT&T/BellSouth’s agreement not to provide or to sell to Internet content, application, or service providers, including those affiliated with AT&T/BellSouth, any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet transmitted over AT&T/BellSouth’s wireline broadband Internet access service based on its source, ownership or destination.

So for two years, AT&T lived under the same rules the FCC seeks to enforce nationwide for all broadband providers.  Did the company shut down?  No — it grew larger with additional mergers and acquisitions.  Did  broadband expansion stop?  No — AT&T has since unveiled its U-verse service and faster broadband in many cities across its service area.  Has it reduced investment in broadband?  What do you think AT&T is spending on deploying U-verse?

The sky never fell, the investment never disappeared, and there was no panic in the streets.  When consumer protections are enacted, the same companies that are currently proclaiming that such changes will ruin their businesses will be singing a different tune to their Wall Street investors once they are enacted.

Read Chairman Genachowski’s Full Statement Below the Jump!

THE THIRD WAY: A NARROWLY TAILORED BROADBAND FRAMEWORK

Chairman Julius Genachowski

Federal Communications Commission

May 6, 2010

Many have asked about the FCC’s next steps in view of the recent decision in the Comcast case.  I’ll describe here a path forward, which will begin with seeking public comment on a post-Comcast legal foundation for the FCC’s approach to broadband communications services.  The goal is to restore the broadly supported status quo consensus that existed prior to the court decision on the FCC’s role with respect to broadband Internet service.

This statement describes a framework to support policies that advance our global competitiveness and preserve the Internet as a powerful platform for innovation, free speech, and job creation.  I remain open to all ideas on the best approach to achieve our country’s vital goals with respect to high-speed broadband for all Americans, and the Commission proceeding to follow will seek comment on multiple legal theories and invite new ideas.

The FCC’s Mission

More than 75 years ago, Congress created the Federal Communications Commission with an explicit mission: “to make available, so far as possible, to all people of the United States . . . A rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communications service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, [and] for the purpose of promoting the safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication.”

In the decades since, the technologies of communications have changed and evolved—from telephone, radio, and broadcast TV to cable, satellite, mobile phones, and now broadband Internet.  With the guidance of Congress, the Commission has tailored its approach to each of these technologies.  But the basic goals have been constant:  to encourage private investment and the building of a communications infrastructure that reaches all Americans wherever they live; to pursue meaningful access to that infrastructure for economic and educational opportunity and for full participation in our democracy; to protect and empower consumers; to promote competition; to foster innovation, economic growth, and job creation; and to protect Americans’ safety.

The Consensus Understanding of the FCC’s Role with Respect to Broadband

A challenge for the FCC in recent years has been how to apply the time-honored purposes of the Communications Act to our 21^st Century communications platform—broadband Internet—access to which is generally provided by the same companies that provide telephone and cable television services.

Broadband is increasingly essential to the daily life of every American.  It is fast becoming the primary way we as Americans connect with one another, do business, educate ourselves and our children, receive health care information and services, and express our opinions. As a unanimous FCC said a few weeks ago in our Joint Statement on Broadband, “Working to make sure that America has world-leading high-speed broadband networks—both wired and wireless—lies at the very core of the FCC’s mission in the 21^st Century.”

Over the past decade and a half, a broad consensus in the public and private sectors has developed about the proper role and authority for the FCC regarding broadband communications. This bipartisan consensus, which I support, holds that the FCC should adopt a restrained approach to broadband communications, one carefully balanced to unleash investment and innovation while also protecting and empowering consumers.

It is widely understood—and I am of the view—that the extreme alternatives to this light-touch approach are unacceptable.  Heavy-handed prescriptive regulation can chill investment and innovation, and a do-nothing approach can leave consumers unprotected and competition unpromoted, which itself would ultimately lead to reduced investment and innovation.

The consensus view reflects the nature of the Internet itself as well as the market for access to our broadband networks.  One of the Internet’s greatest strengths—its unprecedented power to foster technological, economic, and social innovation—stems in significant part from the absence of any central controlling authority, either public or private. The FCC’s role, therefore should not involve regulating the Internet itself.

Consumers do need basic protection against anticompetitive or otherwise unreasonable conduct by companies providing the broadband access service (e.g., DSL, cable modem, or fiber) to which consumers subscribe for access to the Internet.  It is widely accepted that the FCC needs backstop authority to prevent these companies from restricting lawful innovation or speech, or engaging in unfair practices, as well as the ability to develop policies aimed at connecting all Americans to broadband, including in rural areas.

The Broadband Policy Agenda

Consistent with this consensus view of the FCC’s role, Congress last year directed the FCC to develop America’s first National Broadband Plan, which we delivered in March.  And I have described over the past months the policy initiatives I believe are of crucial importance to our global competitiveness, job creation, and broad opportunity.  These include:

• Extending broadband communications to all Americans, in rural and urban America and in between, by transforming the $9 billion Universal Service Fund from supporting legacy telephone service to supporting broadband communications service;
• Protecting consumers and promoting healthy competition by, for example, providing greater transparency regarding the speeds, services, and prices consumers receive, and ensuring that consumers—individuals as well as small businesses—are treated honestly and fairly;
• Empowering consumers to take control of their personal information so that they can use broadband communications without unknowingly sacrificing their privacy;
• Lowering the costs of investment—for example, through smart policies relating to rights-of-way—in order to accelerate and extend broadband deployment;
• Advancing the critical goals of protecting Americans against cyber-attacks, extending 911 coverage to broadband communications, and otherwise protecting the public’s safety; and
• Working to preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet through high-level rules of the road to safeguard consumers’ right to connect with whomever they want; speak freely online; access the lawful products and services of their choice; and safeguard the Internet’s boundless promise as a platform for innovation and communication to improve our education and health care, and help deliver a clean energy future.

At the same time, I have been clear about what the FCC should not do in the area of broadband communications: For example, FCC policies should not include regulating Internet content, constraining reasonable network management practices of broadband providers, or stifling new business models or managed services that are pro-consumer and foster innovation and competition.  FCC policies should also recognize and accommodate differences between management of wired networks and wireless networks, including the unique congestion issues posed by spectrum-based communications.  The Internet has flourished and must continue to flourish because of innovation and investment throughout the broadband ecosystem: at the core of the network, at its edge, and in the cloud.

These policies reflect an essential underlying regulatory philosophy:

• A strong belief in the free market and in private investment as essential and powerful engines of economic growth;
• An embrace of the view that a healthy return on investment is a necessary and desirable incentive to risk-taking and deployment of capital;
• A recognition of the powerful role entrepreneurs, innovators, startups and small businesses must play in fueling American economic success; and
• An understanding that government has a vital but limited role in advancing common goals, for example by helping tackle core infrastructure and public safety challenges; providing basic rules of the road to enable markets to work fairly; acting in a properly calibrated way when necessary to protect consumers and promote competition, investment, and innovation—and otherwise getting out of the way of the entrepreneurial genius and free market that is America’s greatest competitive advantage.

Implications of Comcast v. FCC

The recent court opinion in Comcast v. FCC does not challenge the longstanding consensus about the FCC’s important but restrained role in protecting consumers, promoting competition, and ensuring that all Americans can benefit from broadband communications.  Nor does it challenge the commonsense policies we have been pursuing.

But the opinion does cast serious doubt on the particular legal theory the Commission used for the past few years to justify its backstop role with respect to broadband Internet communications.  The opinion therefore creates a serious problem that must be solved so that the Commission can implement important, commonsense broadband policies, including reforming the Universal Service Fund to provide broadband to all Americans, protecting consumers and promoting competition by ensuring transparency regarding broadband access services, safeguarding the privacy of consumer information, facilitating access to broadband services by persons with disabilities, protecting against cyber-attacks, ensuring next-generation 911 services for broadband communications, and preserving the free and open Internet.

The legal theory that the Comcast opinion found inadequate has its roots in a series of controversial decisions beginning in 2002 in which the Commission decided to classify broadband Internet access service not as a “telecommunications service” for purposes of the Communications Act, but as something different—an “information service.”

As a result of these decisions, broadband became a type of service over which the Commission could exercise only indirect “ancillary” authority, as opposed to the clearer direct authority exercised over telecommunications services. Importantly, at the time, supporters of this “information services” approach clearly stated that the FCC’s so-called “ancillary” authority would be more than sufficient for the Commission to play its backstop role with respect to broadband access services and pursue all sensible broadband policies.

The Commission’s General Counsel and many other lawyers believe that the Comcast decision reduces sharply the Commission’s ability to protect consumers and promote competition using its “ancillary” authority, and creates serious uncertainty about the Commission’s ability, under this approach, to perform the basic oversight functions, and pursue the basic broadband-related policies, that have been long and widely thought essential and appropriate.

This undermining of settled understandings about the government’s role in safeguarding our communications networks is untenable. Since the decision, lawyers from every quarter of the communications landscape have been debating a difficult and technical legal question:  What is the soundest and most appropriate legal grounding to let the FCC carry out what almost everyone agrees to be necessary functions regarding broadband communications?

The Conventional Options

Two primary options have been debated since the Comcast decision:

One, the Commission could continue relying on Title I “ancillary” authority, and try to anchor actions like reforming universal service and preserving an open Internet by indirectly drawing on provisions in Title II of the Communications Act (e.g., sections 201, 202, and 254) that give the Commission direct authority over entities providing “telecommunications services.”

Two, the Commission could fully “reclassify” Internet communications as a “telecommunications service,” restoring the FCC’s direct authority over broadband communications networks but also imposing on providers of broadband access services dozens of new regulatory requirements.

I have serious reservations about both of these approaches.

The FCC General Counsel advises that under the first option, continuing to pursue policies with respect to broadband Internet access under the ancillary authority approach has a serious risk of failure in court.  It would involve a protracted, piecemeal approach to defending essential policy initiatives designed to protect consumers, promote competition, extend broadband to all Americans, pursue necessary public safety measures, and preserve the free and open Internet.

The concern is that this path would lead the Commission straight back to its current uncertain situation—and years will have passed without actually implementing the key policies needed to improve broadband in America and enhance economic growth and broad opportunity for all Americans.

Meanwhile, the second option, fully reclassifying broadband services as “telecommunications services” and applying the full suite of Title II obligations, has serious drawbacks.  While it would clarify the legal foundation for broadband policy, it would also subject the providers of broadband communications services to extensive regulations ill-suited to broadband.  Title II, for example, includes measures that, if implemented for broadband, would fail to reflect the long-standing bipartisan consensus that the Internet should remain unregulated and that broadband networks should have only those rules necessary to promote essential goals, such as protecting consumers and fair competition.

Accordingly, I directed the FCC General Counsel and staff to identify an approach that would restore the status quo—that would allow the agency to move forward with broadband initiatives that empower consumers and enhance economic growth, while also avoiding regulatory overreach.  In short, I sought an approach consistent with the longstanding consensus regarding the limited but essential role that government should play with respect to broadband communications.

I am pleased the General Counsel and staff have identified a third-way approach—a legal anchor that gives the Commission only the modest authority it needs to foster a world-leading broadband infrastructure for all Americans while definitively avoiding the negative consequences of a full reclassification and broad application of Title II.

A Third Way

As General Counsel Austin Schlick explains more fully in his statement today, under this narrow and tailored approach, the Commission would:

• Recognize the transmission component of broadband access service—and only this component—as a telecommunications service;
• Apply only a handful of provisions of Title II (Sections 201, 202, 208, 222, 254, and 255) that, prior to the Comcast decision, were widely believed to be within the Commission’s purview for broadband;
• Simultaneously renounce—that is, forbear from—application of the many sections of the Communications Act that are unnecessary and inappropriate for broadband access service; and
• Put in place up-front forbearance and meaningful boundaries to guard against regulatory overreach.

This approach has important virtues.

First, it will place federal policy regarding broadband communications services, including the policies recommended in the National Broadband Plan, on the soundest legal foundation, thereby eliminating as much of the current uncertainty as possible. From reorienting the Universal Service Fund to support broadband in rural America, to adopting focused consumer protection and competition policies, to promoting public safety in a broadband world, this approach would provide a solid legal basis.  In particular, it would allow broadband policies to rest on the Commission’s direct authority over telecommunications services while also using ancillary authority as a fallback.

Second, the approach is narrow. It will treat only the transmission component of broadband access service as a telecommunications service while preserving the longstanding consensus that the FCC should not regulate the Internet, including web-based services and applications, e-commerce sites, and online content.

Third, this approach would restore the status quo. It would not change the range of obligations that broadband access service providers faced pre-Comcast.  It would not give the FCC greater authority than the Commission was understood to have pre-Comcast.  And it would not change established policy understandings at the FCC, such as the existing approach to unbundling or the practice of not regulating broadband prices or pricing structures.  It would merely restore the longstanding deregulatory—as opposed to “no-regulatory” or “over-regulatory”—compact.

Fourth, the approach would establish meaningful boundaries and constraints to prevent regulatory overreach. The FCC would invoke only the few provisions necessary to achieve its limited but essential goals.  Notably, these are the very same provisions (sections 201, 202, and 254, for example) that telephone and cable companies agree the FCC should invoke, albeit indirectly under an “ancillary authority” approach.  The Commission would take steps to give providers and their investors confidence and certainty that this renunciation of regulatory overreach will not unravel while also giving consumers, small businesses, entrepreneurs and innovators the confidence and certainty they need and deserve.  Since Congress gave the Commission forbearance authority 17 years ago, the Commission has never reversed or undone a forbearance decision.

Fifth, the approach is familiar and has worked well in an analogous context—wireless communications. In its approach to wireless communications, Congress mandated that the FCC subject wireless communications to the same Title II provisions generally applicable to telecommunications services while also directing that the FCC consider forbearing from the application of many of these provisions to the wireless marketplace. The Commission did significantly forbear, and the telecommunications industry has repeatedly and resoundingly lauded this approach as well-suited to an emerging technology and welcoming to investment and innovation. In short, the proposed approach is already tried and true.

Sixth, this approach would allow the Commission to move forward on broadband initiatives that are vital for global competitiveness and job creation, even as it explores with Congress and stakeholders the possibility of legislative clarification of the Communications Act. The Communications Act as amended in 1996 anticipated that the FCC would have an ongoing duty to protect consumers and promote competition and public safety in connection with broadband communications.  Should congressional leaders decide to take up legislation in the future to clarify the statute and the agency’s authority regarding broadband, the agency stands ready to be a resource to Congress as it considers any such legislative measures.  In the interim, however, this approach would ensure that key initiatives to address pressing national challenges can move forward.

I will ask my Commission colleagues to join me in soon launching a public process seeking comment on this narrow and tailored approach.  The proceeding will seek comment regarding the Title I and Title II options discussed above, will seek input on important questions such as whether wired and wireless broadband access should be treated differently in this context, and will invite new ideas.  As we move forward, my focus will be on the best method for restoring the shared understanding of FCC authority that existed before the Comcast decision and for putting in place a solid legal foundation for achieving the policy goals that benefit consumers and our economy in the most effective and least intrusive way.

The state of our economy and recent events are reminders both of the need to be cautious and the necessity of a regulatory backstop to protect the American people.  I stand ready to explore all constructive ideas and expect those who engage with us to do so constructively as well.  The issues presented by the Comcast decision are a test of whether Washington can work—whether we can avoid straw-man arguments and the descent into hyperbole that too often substitute for genuine engagement.

The Comcast decision has created a serious problem.  I call on all stakeholders to work with us productively to solve the problem the Comcast decision has created in order to ensure a solid legal foundation for protecting consumers, promoting innovation and job creation, and fostering a world-leading broadband infrastructure for all Americans.

–FCC–

Share/Save

Davey D

It’s gratifying to know we are not alone in recognizing the parade of minority interest groups on the dole of big telecom companies who are only too willing to parrot their talking points to strike down pro-consumer broadband reform.

Davey D, a journalist, educator, columnist and Hip Hop activist originally from the Bronx who now lives and works in Oakland where does a daily radio show – Hard Knock Radio (KPFA 94.1 FM) is pondering why so many groups are so willing to sell out their constituents:

One of the strategies used by AT&T was to go to communities of color, find Civil Rights organizations and in my humble opinion and pay for their silence or advocacy. The list ranged from LULAC to the Urban League which filed briefs siding with the FCC. It makes no sense why organizations which have long spoke about not having voice their voices heard and a seat at the table would go along with any sort of policy that strip that away from the average person who found such an opportunity via the Internet.

Was having sponsorship dollars for the next awards banquet payment enough? Or a some computers for an after school program payment enough? We’re talking about intelligent people here. It would be absolutely trifling to sell out for something that low and glaringly obvious.

Stop the Cap! exchanged views last week with one such “coalition of the willing to take the check” that claims to represent the interests of Latinos, but won’t answer basic questions about how much they got and from what phone or cable company.

Sylvia Aguilera, representing the Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership, which itself is made up of several groups cashing AT&T’s checks, chided me for my earlier remarks, “HTTP supports reasoned dialogue on the issues and remains dismayed by those, like you, who stoop to categorizing esteemed minority organizations as “astro-turf’. You will gain no allies in our communities with this strategy.”

Our response was to ask Aguilera to come clean on whether HTTP was also getting AT&T money and how much.  No response.  That speaks volumes, of course.  Aguilera makes the mistaken assumption that groups that actually represent consumers are interested in allying themselves with “dollar a holler” advocacy groups like those that make up the HTTP.  Latino readers of Stop the Cap! wondered where HTTP was when Time Warner Cable was testing Internet Overcharging schemes on their Road Runner service in Austin and San Antonio, Texas.  Unlike so many Net Neutrality foes in the not-for-profit community, Stop the Cap! doesn’t take industry money and is 100 percent supported by individual consumers.

Our contention is reasonable dialogue is impossible on telecommunications issues when some of that speech is bought and paid for by AT&T.  In other words, HTTP and its coalition members’ views on this specific issue are nothing more than astroturf and won’t carry much legitimacy in the eyes of consumers as long as AT&T is still cutting them checks.  Return the money, refuse to accept contributions that represent a conflict of interest on public policy debates, and then the reasoned dialogue can actually begin.

Now does this mean these kinds of groups do no good?  Of course not.  I’m sure they have projects that are valuable and important to their respective community interests.  But having come from the non-profit sector myself, I am also well aware of what some groups are willing to do to raise funds, and they aren’t fooling me for a second, nor should they you.

Davey D sums it up:

Below is a list of Civil Rights orgs that submitted files to the FCC saying they wanted to have the internet DEREGULATED. When your s*it starts slowing down, your message filtered or censored, your music hard to access and more importantly your fees go up, give these esteemed organizations and people a call and ask them how they intend to correct what will go down as a egregious error. Maybe they can let you use their accounts cause I’m certain in exchange for siding with these big telecoms they got a few perks including unfettered and fast lane access.

Here are recent anti-Network Neutrality filings by organizations of color

(There are more and I will post them later.)

Urban League Chapter

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020408309

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020400790

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020400568

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020408157

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020400510

National Lesbian and Gay Chamber of Commerce

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020408718

Hispanic Federation

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020408716

LISTA

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020408720

Latino community Foundation in San Francisco

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020408354

Native Americans

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020408711

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020408291

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020408712

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020408704

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020408709

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020408717

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020408708

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020408713

NAACP in California

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020408307

Rainbow Push

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020408211

Texas State Rep. Robert Alonzo

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020408179

MANA, A National Latino Organization

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020400566

100 Black Men of South Metro

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020400798

100 Black Men of Mobile

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020401015

100 Black Men of Greater Mobile

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020401015

ASPIRA

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020400339

100 Black Men of Tennessee

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020400506

100 Black Men of Orlando

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020400502

HTTP

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020400970

Hispanic Interests Coalition of Alabama

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020401020

SER: Jobs for Progress

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020400060

NAACP Mar-Saline Branch

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020399888

Japanese American Citizens League

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020399819

Organization of Chinese Americans

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020399334

Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies

Rep. Yvette Clarke

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020399667

Share/Save

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski wins the Cowardly Lion Award for reports he's set to sell out American consumers for corporate interests

The Washington Post this morning reports FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is preparing to sell out a free and open Internet by adopting a provider appeasement policy that would abandon consumers and broadband users to the whims of big telecom companies.

In an extraordinarily disappointing move by the Obama Administration, which promised to adopt Net Neutrality and better broadband service for consumers, political expediency and typical Democratic party cowardice are likely to derail any hope for adopting consumer protections for the Internet.

Three sources at the [FCC] said Genachowski has not made a final decision but has indicated in recent discussions that he is leaning toward keeping in place the current regulatory framework for broadband services but making some changes that would still bolster the FCC’s chances of overseeing some broadband policies.

The sources said Genachowski thinks “reclassifying” broadband to allow for more regulation would be overly burdensome on carriers and would deter investment. But they said he also thinks the current regulatory framework would lead to constant legal challenges to the FCC’s authority every time it attempted to pursue a broadband policy.

Genachowski is living in a dream world — the non-reality-based community — if he believes for a second the nice telecom industry will happily go along with his plans for better broadband while leaving the current anti-competitive duopolistic framework of deregulation in place.

Telling a multi-billion dollar broadband industry to keep their paws off content and preserve an open and free network would be burdensome… for Stalin.  It should not be for AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon.  If it is, that is why we are supposed to have checks and balances to protect Americans from a corporate oligarchy.  But money talks, and despite all of the repeated promises from President Barack Obama to preserve an open Internet, once the political pressure gets applied and the Money Party of corporate contributions gets going, you can always count on these people to cave in the end. “What Net Neutrality promise?”

Stop the Cap! supporters, with the help of a few “get it done” elected officials and other consumers who stood up and said “no more” to Time Warner Cable and the North Carolina legislature, managed to beat back Internet Overcharging experiments and corporate-friendly legislation to ban municipal broadband networks.  We accomplished both in a matter of weeks last year.  What was our secret?  Integrity.  We’re not behest to corporate lobbyists and industry-funded think tanks who hold the keys to post-administration job opportunities with super-sized salaries.  The Obama Administration and its appointed FCC chairman seem utterly impotent to do what a regulatory agency is supposed to do — regulate.  We might as well have Neville Chamberlain as FCC Chairman, because consumers are starting to feel a bit like 1938 Czechoslovakia, about to be sold out for peace inside the Beltway.

Readers, we will not be Julius Genachowski’s Tylenol.  To the contrary.  Chairman Genachowski appears exceptionally naive to believe he can enact any of his broadband policies over lawsuit-happy big telecoms that will promptly have them tossed out in court rulings.  If you and I already know this, why doesn’t he?  We need bold action, not policy capitulation.  Perhaps it’s time to replace the chairman with someone who isn’t afraid to do the job.

It always shocks me when we elect an administration to lead on the issues it pursues during an election, and then cowers in fear and abandons the American people the moment some lobbyists turn up the heat and start handing out checks.  Even when the overwhelming majority of Americans want a free and open Internet, somehow a handful of bureaucrats in Washington are too afraid to actually get the job done.

“The telephone and cable companies will object to any path the chairman takes,” said Art Brodsky, a spokesman for Public Knowledge, told the Post. “He might as well take the one that best protects consumers and is most legally sound.”

It’s too bad that is considered the radical solution in a lobbyist-infested Washington.  It looks like we’re going to need to start counting the money and making it clear in no uncertain terms that abandoning consumers means we’ll abandon them at the next election.

Marvin Ammori, a CyberLaw Advocate:

If the Post story is predictive, there is almost no list of “horribles” that are not fair game. I’m listing ten. Most of these “horribles” have actually happened as business practices where the carriers got their way. And media companies are believed to refuse ads or stories that criticize them or oppose their position.

Comcast (or AT&T or Verizon or Time Warner Cable) could do any of the following and the FCC could do Big Fat Nothing:

(1) Block your tweets, if you criticize Comcast’s service or its merger, especially if you use the #ComcastSucks hashtag.

(2) Block your vote to the consumerist.com, when you vote Comcast the worst company in the nation. No need for such traffic to get through.

(3) Force every candidate for election to register their campaign-donations webpage and abide by the same weird rules that apply to donations by text message.

(4) Comcast could even require a “processing fee,” becoming the Ticketmaster of campaign contributions.

(5) Comcast could reserve the right to approve of every campaign online and every mass email to a political party’s or advocacy group’s list (as they do with text message short codes).

(6) If you create a small online business and hit it big, threaten to block your business unless you share 1/3 or more of all your revenues with them (apps on the iPhone app stores often are forced to give up a 1/3 or more; so are cable channels on cable TV).

(7) Block all peer to peer technologies, even those used for software developers to share software, distribute patches (world of warcraft), distribute open source software (Linux). In fact, Comcast has shown it would love to do this.

(8) Block Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, Moveon.org (and its emails), because of an “exclusive” deal with other blogs. Or alternatively, block FoxNews.com because of a deal with NBC and MSNBC.

(9) Monitor everything you do online and sell it to advertisers, something else that some phone and cable have done, with the help of a shady spyware company.

(10) Lie to you about what they’re blocking and what they’re monitoring. Hell, the FCC wouldn’t have any authority to make them honest. The FCC couldn’t punish them.

Share/Save

Click here to view the embedded video.

Last Friday, Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps appeared on PBS’ Bill Moyers’ Journal.  He discussed the current state of America’s broadband industry, the implications of not having Net Neutrality protections, and how the Internet is transforming public debate and citizen-powered democracy across the country.  (4/23/2010 — 23 minutes)

BILL MOYERS: The industry wrote a letter to the commission and said that advocates of an open Net who are coming to the FCC and asking you to reclassify what you do as telecommunications want to steer the debate, and I’m quoting from the letter, “in a radical new way.” I mean, they’re calling you extremists and they’re calling you radical.

MICHAEL COPPS: Because I want to call telecommunications, “telecommunications” and go back to the openness that has characterized the net since it was first invented in the laboratories of the Department of Defense. That’s not extreme. That’s not radical. That’s called going back to basics. That’s called consumer protection 101.

BILL MOYERS: How threatened is the whole idea of an open Net?

MICHAEL COPPS: Oh, I think very. I think very. I think there are powerful players that are opposed to it. Are in a position to make their influence felt. None of these things are going to come easy. We’ve just been through the health insurance debate. We’ve got the financial debacle. None of this stuff gets solved without taking on taking on a fight. The government doesn’t work that way. You’ve studied this history, I’ve studied this history. It’s painful, it needs movements, it needs grassroots support, it needs the people.

Share/Save

I had the pleasure of attending the SouthEast Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (SEATOA) conference this past weekend in beautiful Asheville, North Carolina.  I was surrounded by some of the leading visionaries in the fields of next-generation broadband deployment, broadband policy and important Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) access networks.

Among those in attendance:

• Kyle Hollifield, representing Bristol Virginia Utilities/BVU OptiNet, a municipally-owned fiber optic broadband provider in Bristol, Virginia;
• Colman Keane, from municipal utility EPB Telecom in Chattanooga, Tennessee;
• Tommy Jacobson from MCNC;
• Ken Fellman from the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA);
• Hunter Goosman from ERC Broadband, which operates a regional fiber optic network in the western Carolinas;
• Brian Bowman, Public Affairs & Marketing Manager of Wilson, North Carolina, home of municipal fiber network Greenlight, and
• Michael Crowell, Broadband Services Director of Salisbury, North Carolina’s forthcoming fiber to the home network Fibrant.

The conference included several informational sessions for those working on broadband projects.

Tom Power, chief of staff for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and Jessica Zufolo from the Rural Utilities Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture discussed rounds one and two of the broadband stimulus grant program and lessons learned along the way.

Thomas Koutsky, representing the FCC Broadband Opportunities Initiative, the legendary Jim Baller and FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn also spoke about the importance of developing better broadband networks across the country.

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn delivered the keynote address at the SEATOA conference held in Asheville, N.C.

Thomas Koutsky, speaking about the National Broadband Plan said, “The National Broadband Plan is just a plan.  It doesn’t do anything by itself, it requires action.”  I couldn’t agree more.  The National Broadband Plan could culminate in a giant missed opportunity if we do not reach out and demand that our representatives in Washington get on board with a definitive plan to deliver better broadband across the country.  Washington is full of studies and recommendations that are little more than words on paper, sitting on a shelf because Americans didn’t demand action to implement them.

I could go on all day about Jim Baller and his inspiration that drives us all to fight for better broadband in America, but I will highlight this quote: “It is a disgrace that every American does not have affordable access.”  Baller rallied the crowd with a video clip from Al Pacino’s speech in Any Given Sunday.  It’s not difficult to carry Pacino’s message about football to our fight in the broadband arena, and the enthusiasm Baller brings can only be a positive.

Perhaps the most newsworthy event from the conference was a speech from the newest FCC Commissioner, Mignon Clyburn.  She gets it.  In an amazing 20-minute speech, Clyburn succinctly delivered a message we wish some of our state lawmakers would understand and support:

“Thus, the Plan recommends that Congress clarify that state and local governments should not be restricted from building their own broadband networks. I firmly believe that we need to leverage every resource at our disposal to deploy broadband to all Americans. If local officials have decided that a publicly-owned broadband network is the best way to meet their citizens’ needs, then my view is to help make that happen.

When cities and local governments are prohibited from investing directly in their own broadband networks, citizens may be denied the opportunity to connect with their nation and improve their lives. As a result, local economies likely will suffer. But broadband is not simply about dollars and cents, it is about the educational, health, and social welfare of our communities. Preventing governments from investing in broadband, is counterproductive, and may impede the nation from accomplishing the Plan’s goal of providing broadband access to every American and every community anchor institution.”

Clyburn’s speech clearly illustrates she’s an advocate for consumers and is interested in knocking down barriers that block Americans from enjoying world class broadband service.  Clyburn considers the National Broadband Plan a group effort developed by and for the American people, not just a policy document from the FCC.  It was truly an uplifting speech that gave me hope positive change in broadband and broadband policies are possible with her presence on the Commission.

Click here to view the embedded video.

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn delivers the keynote speech at the SEATOA conference.  Clyburn goes on record advocating municipally-run broadband projects where communities deem them appropriate.  This clip comes courtesy of Communities United For Broadband and you saw it first here on Stop the Cap! (April 27, 2010 — 20 minutes)

(This video is large in size.  If playback stops, please pause the video to allow more of the clip to load into the player’s buffer to reduce the chance of stalled playback.  If you still experience problems, please Contact Us.)

Share/Save