The astroturfers remain hard at work trying to convince conservatives the best way to oppose Obama Administration telecommunications policies would be to adopt industry-friendly views opposing Net Neutrality.

The latest to buy in is The American Spectator, publishing a piece this morning titled, “The Great Regrouping.”  In it, The Prowler casts Net Neutrality as part of the Obama Administration’s plot to impose government controls on the Internet, representing a “grave threat … to free speech and conservatives’ ability to organize and mobilize politically.”

During the last day the House was in session before leaving for its August recess, Rep. Ed Markey’s staff introduced HR 3458, the so-called “Internet Freedom Preservation Act,” which would essentially enable government control of the Internet, treating the networks as a government-managed utility. (For more information about “net neutrality,” read this interview that one of the key “net neutrality” supporters gave to a Canadian socialist publication.) The Markey legislation is considered the last piece of what some conservatives consider to be Democrat and progressive attempts to control the Internet and limit citizens’ ability to use the networks to organize and oppose their agenda.

The bill was introduced the same week it was revealed that the Obama Commerce Department was demanding from the phone and cable companies highly detailed data about private citizens’ Internet and broadband connections as part of plans of “map” broadband networks across the country.

Stop the Cap! readers will recognize the source of the link The Prowler promotes — it’s from the very same Heartland Institute astroturfer we chased last week, who was arguing Net Neutrality was a tool to achieve “socialist utopia.”  I pulled a muscle just reading that overreach.

My direct response can be found below the fold.  Suffice to say, this is an example of classic astroturfing at work:

1. A company’s government affairs department recognizes a potential threat to their business model through government oversight or regulation, or sees a financial benefit from industry-favorable legislation or deregulation.  It considers a range of options, including direct lobbying, consumer outreach, and hiring experienced “inside the beltway” expertise.
2. The company approves a plan of action and frequently hires a Washington-based public relations firm.  That firm usually either has direct contact or close associations with astroturf organizations.  As part of the PR firm’s fee, they assure the company its message will be delivered in ways that help steer any public policy debate towards their corner, using astroturfers to reach both consumers and media suspicious of a direct industry appeal, but will listen to an “independent” group.
3. Suddenly, supposedly independent “public interest” groups start beating the drums.  Some speak directly to consumers raising doubts and fears about regulatory matters, others attempt to suggest the public needs to get behind industry-friendly positions for their own benefit.  Press releases and interview opportunities are made available to the media.  Astroturfers with a known political angle wrap industry positions in ideological shells, using them to illustrate a broader ideological point.
4. Most importantly, carefully avoid exposing the direct industry connection.  Industry executives don’t want to admit they are paying for these campaigns.  PR firms help shield the source of the industry money that flows into astroturf groups, and astroturfers work hard to avoid disclosing where the money is coming from.  Even elected officials who take an industry friendly view do not want to directly reference the companies writing big campaign contribution checks.  They’ll cite those supposedly independent “consulting” and “research” and “public interest” groups when reading the talking points.

Unfortunately for them, this convenient public interest shell game has been exposed.

In today’s case:

Industry opposed to Net Neutrality -> Astroturfer Groups -> Outreach to fuel opposition to Net Neutrality for “consumer” or “ideological” reasons.

… Continue Reading

While researching some stories this afternoon, I spoke with an executive at one of the major broadband providers serving consumers with Internet service who told me the company was simply tearing its proverbial hair out over how much online video services like Hulu were costing them — at least $1-2 per gigabyte.  He also said it was putting serious strain on their broadband network.  He didn’t agree to go “on record” putting his name with his views because he was not authorized by company officials to do so, but he was well armed with talking points that said online video is such a problem, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand couldn’t take it any longer and they adopted usage allowances to limit customers watching Hulu and other online video services “like from the BBC.”

These Amateur Hour talking points written at company headquarters will work with a bobblehead-like nodding reporter at a local station getting a 10 second unchallenged sound bite, but they don’t work here.

My industry friend didn’t agree to be on the record, so he’ll remain anonymous, but the points raised are on the record so here we go:

Myth: Hulu is costing broadband providers a ton of money – at least $1-2 per gigabyte.

Truth: Hulu, and other online video services like it, do generate a considerable amount of broadband traffic in the United States.  That online video has posed a potential threat to my provider friend, who faces the prospect of some consumers deciding to disconnect their cable TV service and stick solely with broadband for online video.  However, my friend ignores the fact his company has a way to solve this traffic issue by considering upgrades to DOCSIS 3 technology.  After all, his bosses are actively seeking a way into the online video marketplace themselves.

Dave Burstein, DSL Prime

His employer is testing an online video delivery platform that could easily dwarf Hulu.  Of course, they don’t happen to own or control Hulu, open to any American.  The establishment of an industry-controlled service, available exclusively only to “authenticated” subscribers, really blows the talking point about online video straining their broadband network out of the water.  If Hulu is threatening to do them in, what do they think will happen when their even bigger endeavor launches for millions of users?  Then again, as I told him, such online video drives new subscriptions and they could always take some of that money and invest it in network expansion.

Dave Burstein, a well regarded expert on broadband networks, who writes DSL Prime, obliterates the cost estimate inflation for online video in a short piece titled, HD Video Delivered: 5-8 U.S. cents per hour (SD – 2-4 cents):

Microsoft, Cachelogic and I demo’ed full 6 megabit HD video over the net at Web Video Summit, and the stars are now aligned for HD to become first practical and then common – unless the carriers succeed in taxing the net outrageously. That’s cheap enough that even HD TV over the net can be supported by ads, and it becomes a no-brainer for any movie service that charges to offer true HD.

Dan Rayburn, the guru of the streaming media world, reports “The lowest price I saw in Q1 was two and a half cents per GB delivered for over 500TB of traffic a month. When I questioned many of the major CDNs about this price, nearly all of them told me they don’t price delivery that low, but the contracts say otherwise. That price is not the norm as 500TB a month in delivery is a very large customer.” Repeat: This is not a typical price, even at that large volume. Dan reports more normal prices are 2-4 times this level. So U.S. cents 15-25 is more typical for full HD.

Hulu doesn’t even specialize in HD video programming, so the $1-2 per gigabyte estimate on that talking points handout apparently mistakes a dollar sign for a cents sign.

Myth: Online video is such a problem, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand adopted usage allowances to limit customers watching Hulu and other online video services “like from the BBC.”

Truth: My industry friend is apparently unaware Hulu restricts access to the majority of its content outside of the United States.  If you are watching from Canada, Australia, or South Africa, you’re more likely to encounter an error message telling you this content is not licensed for your area.  I’m not sure how that is supposed to impact on overseas ISPs.  The BBC’s iPlayer not only doesn’t provide broadband video content outside of pre-authorized UK-based Internet Service Providers, it offers lower quality streams outside of the UK for what content is available.  It’s a very common complaint heard by the BBC, but they do not have the resources to offer high bandwidth streaming to the entire world.

Most broadband providers won’t use the word “limit” when it comes to controlling subscribers’ access, because that puts them right in the line of fire.  It’s always been our contention that this is about protecting business models and less about “costs.”

There are tremendous differences between online video content services in the United States versus Canada or other usage-capped countries.  In New Zealand, online video services have been shut down because of usage limits.  In Canada, Australia, and South Africa, they’ve never truly gotten off the ground because “bit caps” make them unsustainable.

South Africa this week celebrated the opening of a new underseas cable to bring additional global connectivity to the continent of Africa.  Broadband service in South Africa today has very little video content at all – usage caps are punishingly low across the region because unlike in the USA, international connectivity has traditionally been obscenely expensive.  Many South African ISPs distinguish themselves by placing heavier limits on sites hosted outside of the country than on those hosted domestically, a nod to the connectivity reality.

The truth is that some ISPs in the United States are looking for arguments to justify Internet Overcharging to maintain high profits and keep demand in check.  Consumers are not buying these industry talking points at any price.

An electrical fire at Time Warner Cable’s headquarters in El Paso, Texas knocked out cable television, Internet, and telephone services for customers across El Paso Tuesday.

Company officials claimed the fire, which did only minor damage, interrupted service for several hours, but some customers reported phone service and on-demand programming interruptions extending into Wednesday.  Although Time Warner claimed the problem affected only “a few” subscribers, KFOX-TV reported the outage affected the entire city of El Paso.

Ironically, although the company’s customer service center was closed Wednesday, the bill payment office remained open for business.

Service has since been restored across the city.

KFOX-TV, El Paso’s local Fox affiliate, has the most in-depth coverage of Time Warner Cable issues in southwest Texas:

[flv width=”640″ height=”360″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KFOX El Paso Time Warner Services Restored Customers Ask For Credit – News Story 8-12-09.flv[/flv]

Warning – Loud Audio!

Time Warner Cable will only issue credits for service interruptions to those who specifically request them.  Residents of El Paso can call 1-800-222-5355 to request credit.

KTSM-TV also reported that some Internet customers may have also been affected with extended outages, even after cable television service was restored:

[flv width=”382″ height=”288″]http://phillipdampier.com/video/KTSM?from=%40 El Paso El Paso Cable Outage Blamed On Power Surge 8-12-09.flv[/flv]

El Paso and Time Warner Cable have had an occasionally contentious history with one another, extending back a year ago when service problems plagued area residents.

Repeated media attention, and the involvement of state and local officials became necessary.  But the ability for the state to deal with poorly performing cable companies is limited — Texas is one of the states that issues statewide cable franchises, tying the hands of local officials.  Additionally, very little state regulation of telecommunications services in Texas means customers often have limited recourse to deal with bad service, beyond simply trying to find an alternative provider, if available.

A history of past troubles can be found in several news video reports below the break.

… Continue Reading

In a sorry development, Canada’s telecommunications regulator, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, today issued a rubber stamp approval of Bell’s proposal to impose Usage Based Billing and overlimit fees and penalties for “excessive use.”

The CRTC apparently breezed its way through Bell’s application, deciding it sounded good enough for them, and made only minor adjustments.  The CRTC’s short-sighted consumer protection angle was to demand that before Bell implemented any Internet Overcharging scheme on its wholesale customers (using the Gateway Access Service), namely those who purchase connectivity to provide independent ISP service to Canadians, they must first stick it to their own retail customers.

Like that represented a problem.

The Commission  approves on an interim basis the Bell companies’ proposed two new Gateway Access Service (GAS) speed options and rates. The Commission also approves on an interim basis their proposal to introduce UBB for GAS, effective 90 days from the date of this order.  The Commission further approves on an interim basis their proposal to introduce an excessive usage charge for GAS of $0.75 per GB in excess of 300 GB, effective the date the Bell companies notify the Commission in writing that they apply an excessive usage charge of $1.00 per GB in excess of 300 GB to all their retail customers on UBB plans.

After all, if you are going to overcharge some people for broadband access, why not overcharge them all!

Bell serves both the wholesale needs of independent service providers and retail consumers subscribing to DSL service.  Last year, Bell suddenly began throttling the speeds of their wholesale customers without notification, killing a major marketing benefit independent providers offered potential subscribers – a non-throttled broadband experience.  The remaining independent service providers that compete against Bell and many cable companies in Canada by offering unlimited access now find that marketing angle also rapidly becoming unavailable.  Such actions benefit the larger providers by making independents uncompetitive and force Canadians into all of the classic Internet Overcharging schemes, with no alternatives.

The result has been outrage by Canadians who have discovered, yet again, the CRTC represents the interests of large corporate telecommunications companies and not the common sense needs of ordinary Canadians for affordable, open Internet access.  While the CRTC continues to act like the cable and telephone industry’s BFF, Canada’s former leadership in broadband rankings continues its rapid deterioration, falling further and further behind other industrialized countries, all for the benefit of providers and their profits.

The CRTC remains impotent in promoting effective competition and consumer-friendly policies.  Broadband Reports notes that may be by design. Many staffers at the CRTC have past histories with the providers they are supposed to independently regulate.  They point specifically to vice-chairman Leonard Katz, whose amazing lack of consumer concern may partly result from his more pressing need to consider the interests of his former employers – Rogers Cable (17 years) and Bell (11 years).

Canadians can and must demand an end to the CRTC-Telecom Industry Friendship Festival that seems to be ongoing at their expense.  Contact your member of Parliament and demand some top to bottom changes in regulatory policy that are front and center focused on the needs of Canadian consumers, not on the interests of a handful of big telecom companies.  An investigation into possible conflict of interest is also warranted.  Exactly how many CRTC staffers come to the agency from the companies that are regulated by it, and how many find nice jobs waiting for them at those companies when they leave government service?

Stop the Cap! readers have seen the differences in broadband pricing between Japan and the United States.  The CRTC approval of Bell’s request makes a bad situation even worse across Canada, particularly in areas where there are no alternatives to Bell’s DSL service.

How low can they go?

Chiehyu Li and James Losey at the New America Foundation have completed an excellent comparison between broadband service overcharging schemes in the United States (and the slow speeds and high prices that accompany them), with broadband service in Japan, where download usage caps are unheard of, speeds reaching 1Gbps are priced at under $60 a month, and bandwidth throttling of peer to peer applications is uncommon at best.

Although services offered by Japanese ISPs are more expensive than these “economy plans,” they are not only much faster but offer considerably more flexibility in terms of bandwidth consumption. In Japan, the lowest cap for residential Internet of the companies we researched is 150GB per month for upstream only, implemented by i-revo, a nationwide fiber ISP that provides up to 100Mbps symmetrical access. BB Excite, SoftBank and Internet Initiative Japan (IIJ) also imposed 420GB to 450GB bandwidth per month only on the upload side.

Although pricing is higher for some of the “economy” plans in Japan, customers there have no risk of running into overlimit penalties and fees punitively placed on customers’ bills when they exceed the paltry caps usually found on Internet Overcharging “economy” tiers.  With some charging $2-10 per gigabyte, it’s easy to send bills much higher with very little usage.

The report “demonstrates that bandwidth caps in the U.S. are more restrictive than in Japan. ISPs in Japan only cap upstream traffic, if at all, and few impose network management practices to limit bandwidth consumption. The results of this report should encourage policymakers to investigate market conditions in Japan to determine how and why their networks supports far more per-customer throughput than comparable networks in the U.S. Additionally, regulators and policymakers need to investigate why Japanese high-speed Internet subscribers get faster speeds at lower prices, with fewer limitations than subscribers in the U.S.”

Of course, it’s no mystery why American providers are seeking to impose various overcharging schemes on their customers — they want fatter profits, and will leverage the barely competitive broadband market to get them, especially if they think policymakers won’t respond with the appropriate oversight and regulation, where necessary, to protect consumers from monopoly/duopoly-leveraged pricing.

Even comparing the higher bandwidth caps in the two countries, including the highest priced residential plans, bandwidth caps in the U.S. are drastically lower and more restrictive than those in Japan. Chart 2 shows service options with the highest bandwidth cap in the two countries. U.S. ISPs such as Cox, Charter, Comcast and Cable One cap bandwidth from 20 GB to 250GB per month for combined up and downstream traffic for their higher-priced Internet services. Among these ISPs, Cox has the highest monthly caps, offering 300GB for downstream and 100GB for upstream to Ultimate Package subscribers (50Mbps/5Mbps). Comcast caps bandwidth at 250GB a month, combined upstream and downstream, for all tiered Internet services. Continuing the U.S. trend towards more restrictive Internet service, AT&T has proposed bandwidth caps of 20-150GB a month. In addition, some of these ISPs have imposed network management on users’ Internet traffic.

The United States has one major multiple cable system owner that has sworn off these schemes – Cablevision.  A few competitors, including Grande Communications, found in Texas, also advertise they will not impose limits or schemes on their customers.  Frontier Communications has promised its customers it will not enforce any limits on its broadband customers until further notice either (although we’d prefer they eliminate the 5GB Acceptable Use language from their terms and conditions).  Verizon is perhaps the most important non-capper, at least for now.  It has no current plans to implement Internet Overcharging schemes on its customers.

Once again, the United States is heading backwards in broadband pricing, speed, and freedom for customers to use their service as they see fit.  Instead, providers with Internet Overcharging schemes seek to limit broadband usage to extract maximum potential profits, and protect their video business from online competition.  The fundamental question for the future will be, who controls America’s Internet?