Consumer Reports underlines the point: America's worst cell phone company promises America better things by merging with America's second-worst cell phone company. Is this a good deal for America or just for AT&T and T-Mobile?

This morning’s announced deal of a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile is what antitrust rules were made to prevent.  This bold merger would not have even been attempted had the two companies believed they could not get it past supine regulators and members of Congress who receive substantial contributions from AT&T.

Ordinary consumers can see right through AT&T’s business plans, so why can’t our regulators and policymakers?  In a word, money.

The FCC’s own National Broadband Plan delivers clear warnings that the growing concentration in the wireless industry will hamper better broadband in the United States, not enhance it.  Reduced consumer choice and competition takes the pressure off carriers to innovate, expand, and keep wireless costs under control.

Reducing the number of players on the field delivers countless benefits to carriers and their shareholders.  But for consumers, there is nothing but a few promised spoonfuls of sugar to help the industry’s agenda go down — with vague promises of better rural service, faster wireless data, and new handsets.

In a truly-competitive marketplace, Washington regulators need not exact promises of better service from mega-sized carriers: the much-vaunted “free market” would deliver them naturally, as competitors invest and innovate to succeed.  But that kind of market is increasingly disappearing with every merger.

Nowadays, officials at the FCC and Justice Department are willing to accept deals if they promise some token bone-throwing, at least until the company lobbyists inevitably manage to get those conditions discarded during the next round of deregulation — cutting away rules that “tie the hands” of companies picking your pockets.

Money makes the impossible very possible, and AT&T intends to spend plenty to earn plenty more down the road.  Let’s review how the game will be played, and what you can do to stop it.

The “Free Market” Crowd Sells Out

Randolph May is willing to sell robust competition down the river if it means he can get 4G network access faster.

When the chorus of capitalism capitulates on the most important formula for success in a deregulated marketplace — robust competition on a level-playing field, we know there is a problem.  Take Randolph May.  He works for the free market think tank Free State Foundation.  Watch what happens when even the most ardent supporter of ‘letting the marketplace sort things out’ twists and turns around admitting America is facing a future duopoly in wireless:

“In an ‘idealized’ marketplace, the more competitors the better. But the telecom marketplace is not an idealized market. It is one that requires huge ongoing capital investments to build broadband networks that deliver ever more bandwidth for the ever more bandwidth-intensive, innovative services consumers are demanding,” he says.  “My preliminary sense is that the benefits from the proposed merger, with the promise of enhanced 4G network capabilities implemented more quickly than otherwise would be the case, outweigh the costs. Even after the merger, the wireless market should remain effectively competitive with the companies that remain.”

That’s a remarkable admission for someone who normally argues that marketplace fundamentals are more important than individual players.

May is willing to sell a robust competitive marketplace down the river in return for 4G — a standard AT&T is hurrying to bring to its customers threatening to depart for better service elsewhere.  With this deal, disgruntled customers will have one fewer choice to turn to for service.

Make no mistake: a free, unregulated wireless marketplace requires more than two national carriers and a much-smaller third (Sprint) to deliver real competition.

The Dollar-A-Holler Phoney Baloney Astroturf Groups

AT&T will waste no time trotting out comments from non-profit groups essentially on their payroll who will peddle filings with regulators promoting AT&T’s business agenda in return for substantial sized donation checks to their causes.  The usual suspects, which include groups serving minority communities, will tout the “wonderful things” the deal will bring to their constituencies.

Already out this morning is this curious remark picked up by Broadcasting & Cable from Debra Berlyn, who claims to represent consumers as part of a group called the Consumer Awareness Project:

Beryln's consumer group has a few problems: It's not a group, it doesn't represent consumers, and she is an industry consultant.

“Wireless acquisitions over the course of the past decade have not led to price increases for consumers and, in fact, the statistics show that prices have declined during this period. While some consumer voices have focused on the loss of a wireless competitor in relation to AT&T’s recently announced plans to acquire T-Mobile USA, the news for consumers should be seen in another light with a focus on the benefits that this merger can bring to consumers across the U.S.”

Perhaps the first goal of any group trying to make consumers aware of anything is to actually have a website associated with your group.  The “Consumer Awareness Project” forgot this important first step, but we eventually found the “group” using a re-purposed web address, “consumerprivacyawareness.org,” and note they have only recently become significantly active on this issue, now peddling AT&T’s agenda with gobbledygook.

When Berlyn isn’t pounding out prose to benefit AT&T, she is making guest appearances in Comcast’s corporate blog or being a favorite source of industry-connected groups like the nation’s largest broadband astroturf effort, Broadband for America.

In fact, after some digging, one learns there are no actual consumers involved with the “Consumer Awareness Project.”  The entire affair is actually a project of a Washington, D.C., lobbying-consultancy firm — Consumer Policy Solutions, which counts among its services:

• Federal advocacy: Legislative and regulatory advocacy work before Congress, federal agencies and the administration.
• State and local advocacy: Policy development and implementation and grassroots mobilization.

That is the very definition of interest group “astroturf.”  But my favorite section of this company’s website is the promise paying clients will get Berlyn’s experience “in communicating complex language and issues into easily understandable, applicable messages for consumers.”

Such as: AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile is good for consumers, even if it raises prices and reduces competition.

I’m sold.

The Cowardly Lion & A Myopic Justice Department

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's cowardly cave-ins set the stage for AT&T's bold merger move, believing they have government oversight under their control.

The first hurdle this deal will need to overcome is among Washington regulators, most of whom are either way over their heads understanding the implications of super-sized mergers like this or are simply terrified of going out on a limb with a multi-billion dollar company that can create headaches for your agency in Congress.

AT&T will sell this deal within a very limited context of the deal itself, and urge regulators to ignore “emotional” issues about the increasingly concentrated wireless marketplace.  Verizon did much the same with its acquisition of Alltel — urging regulators to ignore the fact they were removing a player in the market and focus instead on the benefits Verizon’s size and scope could bring to existing Alltel customers.  Of course, in many areas Alltel served, customers were free to do that themselves simply by signing up for Verizon service.

Dan Frommer, a senior staff writer at Business Insider, delivers a TripTik outlining AT&T’s roadmap to deal approval:

“AT&T believes its experience with regulatory review has given it a good picture of what’s realistic and what isn’t from an approval standpoint, and believes it can frame the deal in a way that won’t be rejected,” he writes.  “AT&T says the Feds are looking at “the facts” — hinting that they aren’t acting based on emotions or politics. Though, no doubt, there will be plenty of jockeying in the press and among lobbyists from those on both sides of the deal.”

But Frommer wades in too deep and drowns his credibility claiming the combination of some of the largest wireless carriers in the country still leave plenty of competitors.  Besides Verizon, there is just a single national player of consequence remaining – Sprint.  MetroPCS and Cricket deliver service in urban areas in selected cities. US Cellular, Cellular South, and several others deliver service to an even smaller number of communities, entirely dependent on large carriers for roaming coverage.

The Justice Department’s typical solution to antitrust concerns is to force limited concessions like divestiture of assets in particularly concentrated markets.  In most cases, companies agree because those assets are often redundant and would be sold anyway, or cover such a limited area as to be inconsequential to the greater deal.  Former Alltel customers found themselves traded first to Verizon and then divested away to AT&T.

Most of the customers divested away from T-Mobile’s future with AT&T will likely end up switched to Verizon, hardly a success story for increased competition.

FCC lawyers will likely review this transaction with a narrow scope, too.  Instead of contemplating the implications of the inevitable duopoly that could result, the FCC will likely find itself negotiating over individual details of the deal without considering an outright rejection of it.

AT&T admits they are on a mission to monetize data usage.

At the FCC, Julius Genachowski’s performance as a regulator has been nothing short of a disaster, pleasing almost nobody in the process.  His “cowardly lion” approach to regulation has delivered rhetoric without substance and a whole lot of broken promises.  Genachowski has proven to be unable to stand up to the companies he is tasked with regulating.  With two Republican commissioners likely to favor the deal and Michael Copps almost certainly in opposition, it will be up to Julius Genachowski and Mignon Clyburn to vote this deal up or down.

But regulators are also responsive to Congressional pressure and dramatic backlash by consumers, such as what happened just a few years ago when big media companies lobbied to relax media ownership rules.  When consumers (and voters) revolt, regulators will change their tune… and fast.

What You Can Do

Consumers can make a difference in what comes next for T-Mobile and AT&T.  The first step is to make this an issue with your member of Congress and two senators.  Let them know you have profound concerns about another huge wireless merger.

There is simply no tangible benefit that can outweigh the loss of another important competitor in the American wireless marketplace.

AT&T’s bottom-rated service will not become any better acquiring the second-to-last rated service.  The company must invest in its network to compete, not simply pick off competitors to save money.  The loss of T-Mobile would mean only three national carriers, and it is highly unlikely Sprint would be able to withstand pressures on Wall Street to merge themselves away, probably to Verizon.

Tell your elected officials the AT&T/T-Mobile deal is a consumer nightmare and should not be approved under any circumstances.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Glenchur Says Regulatory Risk Substantial for ATT 3-21-11.mp4[/flv]

The always optimistic Bloomberg News says AT&T’s deal could still get past regulators, but there is a substantial risk as well.  Consumers can help make that risk unsustainable by telling the Obama Administration and Congress better broadband does not come from a duopoly, no matter how well-intentioned.  (4 minutes)

Dismissing the implications of an antitrust regulatory review not seen in the United States for years, AT&T this morning officially unveiled its intention to acquire T-Mobile in a $39 billion deal that will give AT&T nearly 40 percent of the American wireless market.

With a combination of the two companies, the new super-sized AT&T would become America’s largest wireless operator, and deliver nearly three out of every four wireless customers to just two companies — AT&T and Verizon.

Wall Street is delighted.

“Phenomenal deal if it happens,” said Jonathan Chaplin, an analyst with Credit Suisse Group AG. “Huge upside for AT&T — [T-Mobile owner] Deutsche Telekom getting a great price; however, we believe regulatory risk is enormous.”

That may prove an understatement, if public interest groups have their way.

“The combination of the second-largest wireless carrier, AT&T, with the fourth-largest, T-Mobile is, as former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt once said, ‘unthinkable,'” said Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn. “We urge policymakers to think similarly today. The wireless market, now dominated by four big companies, would have only three at the top. We know the results of arrangements like this – higher prices, fewer choices, less innovation.”

“It’s difficult to come up with any justification or benefits from letting AT&T swallow up one of its few major competitors,” said Parul P. Desai, policy counsel for Consumers Union. “AT&T is already a giant in the wireless marketplace, where customers routinely complain about hidden charges and other anti-consumer practices.”

...Ourselves with AT&T

“I think it could reach some level of controversy,” said an antitrust expert, who worked for the Justice Department’s antitrust division. “There’s going to be spectrum issues. This is going to be a complex deal and I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that it will be approved.”

Despite the concerns, AT&T is confident that regulators have been sufficiently cowed by the company’s lobbyists to approve just about anything they bring to the table.

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson told reporters on a conference call that the company spent plenty of time doing “homework” on how to get the deal to pass regulator scrutiny.

The American carrier even bet its winning outcome with a $3 billion cancellation fee, payable to Deutsche Telekom if the deal cannot be consummated.

In AT&T’s presentation this morning, the company promised they would improve America’s worst-rated cell phone company by merging with America’s second worst-rated cell phone company.  Specifically, AT&T says the deal will bring T-Mobile’s wireless spectrum allocations to the larger carrier, which can alleviate spectrum shortages.  The company also promised, in return for deal approval, expand service in more rural locations and quicker upgrades to the next generation of speedy wireless data — LTE.

Ralph de la Vega

Ralph de la Vega, AT&T’s president and CEO of Mobility and Consumer Markets, showed slides promising T-Mobile customers would benefit from new choices in cell phones and would enjoy AT&T’s far larger nationwide network, delivering improved service.  But he also hinted it would cost value-oriented T-Mobile customers, promoting the deal’s potential of winning new revenue from customers soon forced to pay AT&T’s significantly higher prices.

AT&T claimed the company still would face robust competition from Verizon, Sprint, and a number of much-smaller regional carriers like MetroPCS and Leap Wireless’ Cricket — themselves under pressure to merge.  But consumer groups are skeptical.

“Don’t believe the hype: There is nothing about having less competition that will benefit wireless consumers,” said Free Press Research Director Derek Turner. “And if regulators approve this deal, they will further cement duopoly control over the wireless market by AT&T and Verizon.”

“The FCC’s National Broadband Plan, issued last year, warned about the absence of sufficient competition in the wireless market. The possibility that three players would control nearly three-quarters of that market will surely trigger intense scrutiny by the agencies,” said Andrew Schwartzman of Media Access Project.

The deal has been under negotiation for several months between the German carrier and AT&T.  Many Wall Street analysts see the deal as a major win for T-Mobile, which has struggled mightily against the AT&T and Verizon juggernauts.  The German company wins a seat on AT&T’s board, a part interest in the carrier, and a high valuation on its network.  AT&T gets the country’s only other major carrier using the same technology it does — GSM — and picks up the potential of more robust coverage in the urban and suburban areas T-Mobile focuses on.  AT&T will also follow the time honored tradition of buying something they cannot afford outright — they will finance it with a generous credit line arranged by J.P. Morgan Chase.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Mergers and Acquisitions ATT and T-Mobile Merger to Create Industry Giant 3-21-11.flv[/flv]

CNBC managed to achieve an exclusive interview with the CEOs of AT&T and T-Mobile about their merger.  As with most business media, don’t expect a lot of challenging questions in response to the claims made by the company executives about the merger or its impact on consumers.  (20 minutes)

Verizon delivers fiber-to-the-home service over its FiOS network.

Verizon Communications says it will not run an Internet Overcharging scheme on its wired broadband customers.

The company that knows about investment and upgrading their networks like few others — bringing true, fiber-to-the-home FiOS service to customers across several states — says it has no need to impose usage caps or metered billing on its wired broadband customers.

“This is something we have looked at in the past, and we’ll continue to evaluate what’s best to ensure our customers get the best broadband service for the best value,” Verizon spokesman Bill Kula told Broadband Reports. “We have no plans to implement usage-based pricing for our fixed broadband customers,” Kula says.

Verizon’s announcement provides additional ammunition against AT&T’s unjustified 150-250GB usage caps over claims it faces congestion issues.

The company doesn’t share AT&T’s “congestion problem,” probably for two reasons:

1. Because it does not exist.
2. Verizon has upgraded their network to keep up with demand, winning new customers with their top-rated FiOS fiber to the home network.

Karl Bode sees right through AT&T’s arguments:

If you believe AT&T’s claim that the new pricing is about congestion and not about protecting U-Verse revenues from a Internet video — and many don’t — Verizon’s decision to spend $24 billion on upgrading more than half of their network to fiber to the home would make a Verizon decision to follow suit a very tough sell. AT&T has previously stated their last-mile customers see little to no congestion, and Verizon’s seeing even less.

Kula notes Verizon doesn’t oppose the use of usage caps, but their TOS allows them to handle any users they deem particularly gluttonous, and even then — Verizon makes it clear to us they’ve never disconnected one of these users. “Verizon terms of service were written in a way to allow us to terminate users if they violate our acceptable use policy, and excessive use ‘could’ constitute a violation,” says Kula. “However, we’ve not disconnected any consumer, small business or mass market customers to date.”

Stop the Cap! has never objected to terms and conditions which provide an escape clause for a provider that encounters a customer creating significant problems on its network, such as e-mail spamming, illegal activity, or causing serious problems for other users.  These terms and conditions are a part of every Acceptable Use Policy, and responsible providers don’t activate those provisions on a whim.

It’s too bad some AT&T customers can’t choose an alternative to a company who promised great things with U-verse, and then put unjustified limits on customer enjoyment.

Good news to report for North Carolina consumers.  With a coordinated pro-consumer pushback, we’re achieving some victories in the battle to stop big cable and phone companies from pushing community broadband networks out of the state.  Since Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable) was not amenable to withdrawing the bill cable lobbyists authored, your appeals to members of the Finance Committee made a major difference: winning exemptions for the state’s existing community networks and redefining an under-served area to any community where 50 percent of households cannot obtain high-speed broadband service.

North Carolina’s local media is becoming increasingly aware of H.129 for the first time, and so are many consumers — outraged over reports state government is spending its valuable time working on the cable industry’s wishlist.

Today was a very important victory and we are glad to have done our part to win it, but this battle is by no means over.  We fully expect Time Warner trickery — their lobbyists will be back next week to try and undo what we have accomplished together.

We’ve been here before.  A de-fanged bill is okay, but a bill voted down altogether is better.

Please thank Chairman Mitchell S. Setzer for his call for a recorded vote, which helped us track who represents consumers and who fights for the cable company’s agenda.

We’d also like to thank Rep. K. Alexander, Rep. Faison, Rep. Luebke, Rep. Ross, Rep. H. Warren, and Rep. Womble for their strong support for better broadband in North Carolina.  There will be more to thank along the way, but this is a good start.

We are continuing the consumer fight to see H.129 shot down as the travesty it represents.  This proposed legislation does not deliver a single new broadband connection, improve ones that already exist, or deliver lower prices to anyone.

Citizens in Raleigh are making their feelings known on WRAL-TV’s website:

“NC should be encouraging and assisting rural cities and towns looking at doing this, not putting up obstacles. But I’m sure the Time Warner, Comcast and AT&T lobbyists have deep pockets full of excellent graft.”

“This all comes down to the city of Wilson. They offered every telecom and cable provider to provide 100Mbps internet access to 100% of the people in the city if they want it at a rate of $50/month (I think that was the amount). Every single private company laughed and said it was not profitable and they would take the contract. So, the City of Wilson took it upon themselves to provide the product the city wanted. Now, all of the companies are whining? Provide what the City of Wilson did at the price they did and there would be no problem. Don’t blame this on taxes. The simple issue is that TWC, Charter, and you name it want to make 100-200% profit and offer substandard high speed internet. “

“Come on NC. Reject the Bill and approve an order to allow cities to provide this technology if the monopolistic companies will not. Get them out of our state.”

“Frankly, if it were to mean that I could dump Time Warner Cable and their cra**y service and their “Oh we’re raising our rates again due to the Sun coming up 5 minutes late” attitude, I would be elated!”

“When will it ever be enough for the cable and phone companies? Their lines and equipment have been in place for YEARS and what do we get….rate increases every year, outages, lines cut, spotty internet service. It’s high time they have some competition. If they can afford to give new customers discounts for 12 months, why not keep the prices at that level with only moderate increase over time and then KEEP MORE customers in the fold? Just a thought!”

“The internet service offered by Wilson ROCKS. Twice the speed at half the price of TWC. No wonder they’re trying to block this from happening.”

The people are speaking, and they do not want state legislators moonlighting for the interests of cable and phone companies.  Remind your legislators you want more choice, not less.  Tell them to oppose H.129 and ask Rep. Avila to withdraw her bill.

Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable) at today’s House Finance Committee Meeting (1 Hour, 13 minutes)

In a stretch even the most accomplished Yoga master would never attempt, an industry-funded dollar-a-holler group has told Congress that Internet Overcharging is a useful tool to combat online piracy.

On Tuesday, Daniel Castro, an analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of combating “rogue sites [that] operate in a low risk, high reward environment.”

In December 2009, ITIF proposed a number of policies to help reduce online copyright infringement, especially in countries that turn a blind eye to copyright enforcement. The purpose of these policies is to establish a robust enforcement mechanism to combat IP theft online. These recommendations include the following:

• Create a process by which the federal government, with the help of third parties, can identify websites around the world that are systemically engaged in piracy;
• Enlist ISPs to combat piracy by blocking websites that offer pirated content, allowing pricing structures and usage caps that discourage online piracy, and implementing notice and response systems;
• Enlist search engines to combat piracy by removing websites that link to infringing content from their search results;
• Require ad networks and financial service providers to stop doing business with websites providing access to pirated content;
• Create a process so that the private sector can consult with government regulators on proposed uses of anti-piracy technology;
• Fund anti-piracy technology research, such as content identification technology;
• Pursue international frameworks to protect intellectual property and impose significant pressure and penalties on countries that flout copyright law.

Castro’s idea of allowing providers to establish “pricing structures and usage caps” stands out like a sore thumb in the context of battling piracy because it is the only recommendation on the list that targets every broadband user with the same broad brush, punishing every customer whether they are engaged in piracy or not.

It would be like setting up roadblocks and searching every vehicle in a city to search for a shoplifter.  Every individual is found guilty before being proved innocent, and will be forced to pay higher prices regardless of the outcome.

The ITIF proposal runs contrary to years of efforts by Internet Service Providers to avoid being involved in the personal business of their customers.  In 2009, major ISPs wanted no part of enforcing a proposal from the record industry for a “three strikes, you’re out” plan.  Verizon, among others, made clear copyright enforcement was not their responsibility to police, although many ISPs are willing to forward copyright infringement notices to individual customers.

Castro’s testimony goes over the top when he blames his own suggested pricing antidote for “hurting law-abiding consumers who must […] pay higher prices for Internet access to compensate for the costs of piracy.”

Of course, no ISP has ever suggested they would use the extra revenue earned from Internet Overcharging to combat another industry’s piracy problem.

His sweeping indictment against consumers extends beyond nipping at their bank accounts on behalf of telecommunications companies who help fund the group he represents.  He also suggests those who oppose his piracy prescriptions are either in league with, or defenders of piracy — or other offenders ranging from criminal enterprises to kiddie porn peddlers.

Castro’s support for usage caps to control illicit online activities leaves collateral damage as far as the eye can see.  It also simply won’t work for many forms of piracy Castro complains about.  ISPs with usage caps go out of their way to note even the most draconian limits still allow thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of songs to be downloaded — legal or otherwise.  Castro testified e-published books are now increasingly vulnerable to piracy, content compact and easy to obtain even with usage limits.  Combating websites dealing in counterfeit goods with usage limits isn’t even worth trying.

What Castro’s proposal will do is limit access to the growing amount of legitimate online video traffic.  While the author cites statistics that “one in four bits of traffic traveling on the Internet today is infringing content,” (taken from a report commissioned by NBC-Universal, who has a major interest in this battle) he ignores other facts.  Namely, more than three-quarters of all broadband traffic is legal and legitimate.  Nearly 20 percent of primetime broadband traffic is coming from companies like Netflix who are in the business of providing a legal alternative to video piracy.

Castro’s argument on usage caps simply falls apart: ISPs, who have never been particularly interested in being the enforcement divisions for Hollywood studios, should be given the right to limit broadband usage and raise prices to combat piracy even when most of that traffic heads for legitimate websites?

Public Enemy #1 for Content Theft circa 1981: The $1,400 VCR

Online piracy enforcement should not involve Internet Overcharging schemes, and arguments that it should only illustrate why so many consumers and public interest groups get nervous about industry-proposed enforcement mechanisms.  Too often, they ignore presumption of innocence before guilt, browbeat alleged offenders into settlements to avoid costly litigation — guilty or not, and turn over policing to an industry with a long track record of overreach to protect their business interests. The record speaks for itself:

• Demands to ban videotape recorders in the 1970s and early 1980s for “piracy reasons”;
• Tax cassettes and video tapes to cover alleged piracy losses in the 1980s;
• Tax blank digital media in the 1990s because of “rampant piracy”;
• Impose monthly “piracy recovery surcharges” on broadband users in the 2000s;

Now the industry wants to police the piracy problem on its own terms.  As before, the proposed solutions are worse than the problem.

Back to the future.  In 1981, ABC’s Nightline ran this report on the entertainment industry suing a VCR owner, retailers, and manufacturers for piracy over taping a television station with a videocassette recorder.  The concern in 1981 — technology was moving faster than copyright law could keep up.  Many of the yesterday’s players are part of today’s debate, including Universal, the company that purchased research indicting 20 percent of all Internet traffic as “illegal.” (Part 1 of 3 – 9 minutes – Courtesy WEWS-TV Cleveland, ABC News, and ‘videoholic1980s’)

Today’s piracy debate rehashes the same accusations of content theft, only the technology has changed.  One executive tells the Nightline audience he’s offended at being told the industry already earns enough.  The movie and television industry predicted calamity over the VCR more than 30 years ago, saying it would cost them billions in lost profits.  Hollywood eventually lost the argument against the VCR and their businesses turned out fine, earning billions in revenue selling videotapes of movies and television shows to consumers they were willing to sue just a few years earlier. (Part 2 of 3 – 9 minutes)

Before Washington is asked to join the panic-frenzy over online piracy, perhaps they should recall the same predictions of doom and gloom made by many of the same companies — predictions that were overstated.  Imagine if they had succeeded in banning the VCR?  Indeed, just as before, Hollywood stands to earn billions online when they make their content available for easy, legal viewing at a reasonable price.  Slapping usage limits on broadband consumers is the worst idea ever to promote legal viewing of digital content because it discourages customers from shopping for it.  (Part 3 of 3 – 4 minutes)