When millions of dollars are at stake, some commercial broadband providers will stop at nothing to preserve the duopoly they enjoy across most of North Carolina.  Their formula for success — delivering the least amount of service at the highest possible price.  When communities like Wilson and Salisbury decided that formula wasn’t working for them, they embarked on their own municipally-built, fiber-based broadband networks.  It wasn’t something either community took lightly.  They asked, they pleaded, they begged for better broadband service from incumbent providers who decided what they were providing was already good enough.

The biggest shock of these providers’ lives came when both communities decided to build better networks themselves.

Now, the commercial providers who are challenged to upgrade to compete are instead spending enormous sums of money in the North Carolina legislature to put a stop to these municipal projects.  Why spend money on upgrading when you can simply ban the potential competition?

Last year, Stop the Cap! teamed up with other consumer advocates to put a stop to legislation custom-written by the cable industry and introduced by a very-compliant state legislator.  When our readers and others called to complain, some found the phone handed off to a cable lobbyist literally sitting in his office!

Your outrage over paying big bills for bad service from too few providers was heard in Raleigh, and the legislation was de-fanged and buried in a committee charged with “studying the issue.”  The legislator who introduced it resigned under an ethical cloud last fall.

Unfortunately for consumers in North Carolina, there is always someone else willing to pick up where the last one who sold his constituents down the river left off.

Our North Carolina issues coordinator Jay Ovittore, who is now working with Communities United for Broadband to promote better broadband, is here with a report about the latest developments in North Carolina and a Call to Action! for all of our readers.  Preserving successful municipal broadband projects and those working to get off the ground protects this option for every community faced with intransigent broadband providers who won’t improve service.  — Phillip Dampier

As I told everyone on Stop the Cap! last summer, they would be back.

They are, and now they’ve shown us their cards.

North Carolina’s incumbent cable and phone companies are once again trying to ram through an anti-municipal broadband bill, and their timing is designed to rush it through committee before a groundswell of consumer opposition has a chance to build.  Time is short — the bill will be taken up April 21st in the Revenue Laws Study Committee, so your immediate action is imperative!

Clodfelter

This year’s push for anti-consumer legislation comes courtesy of Senator Daniel G. Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg County).

He reportedly wants a moratorium on all municipal broadband deployments on the alleged basis that these are bad for the private sector and will harm state tax revenue.  Hello?  Virtually every municipal broadband project underway fuels job creation as crews work to install the fiber optic networks that will come to represent an economic catalyst and job creator.  When communities no longer have to turn away digital economy jobs lost because of inadequate broadband by existing providers, that’s an economic victory for hard-pressed North Carolina, where unemployment is at 11.2 percent these days — 10th worst in the country.

The FCC’s National Broadband Plan has prioritized stimulating the deployment of ultra high-speed broadband (100/50Mbps) service to 100 million households in ten years, so why are some in our legislature standing in the way of better broadband options for North Carolina?  You need to ask them!

Just look at Wilson’s community broadband project for evidence of a broadband success story.  Wilson pleaded with providers to deliver 21st century broadband service to no avail.  So Wilson did it themselves.

Cable and phone companies howled in protest.  They even brought in their astroturfing friends from corporate-funded groups like FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity to try and hookwink consumers into opposing municipal broadband.

It’s just another classic case of providers not wanting to spend money to upgrade their networks to compete.  Communities like Wilson getting the broadband service they deserve are good examples of why the industry is afraid such projects could spread.

[flv width=”480″ height=”292″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Save NC Broadband Catherine Rice Compares Rates 12-2009.mp4[/flv]

Watch what happens when a municipal provider competes for your business.  Catherine Rice of Action Audits delivered the undeniable proof at a December NC House Select Committee on High Speed Internet Access in Rural and Urban Areas hearing, showing while cable and broadband rates across the state march ever higher, they strangely don’t in Wilson, where GreenLight, the municipal alternative, keeps rates in check. Click here to download a PDF copy of the slides Rice refers to in her presentation. (11 minutes)

Some members of the legislature will stand with their constituents and vote against this anti-consumer nightmare.  Some may not be fully informed on the issues and are only hearing the telecommunications industry talking points.  For some others, I’m afraid it’s a case of following the money.

The telecommunications industry in North Carolina is very generous to their benefactors, only too willing to return the favor writing the industry’s wish-list into state law.

You will recognize some of the names from the Follow the Money series I wrote last year (read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3).  It’s a new year, so Part 4 will follow in the coming days, updating the financial contributions of incumbents and introducing new members and how much they’ve accepted from this industry.

Ironically, one of the legislators, Rep. Pryor Allan Gibson, III works as a contractor for Time Warner Cable!  His vote will be particularly interesting to follow.

North Carolina Legislature

North Carolina Call to Action!

Phone calls are always the most effective, and they are timely coming just days before the April 21st meeting of the Revenue Laws Study Committee.  But you can also e-mail representatives (and that’s not a bad idea even if you also called).  North Carolina deserves world-class, next-generation broadband.  Don’t allow a handful of the same companies overcharging you for today’s slow service strangle your best chance for competition!

Here is a sample e-mail message to send to all of the Committee members involved:

Subject: Don’t You Dare Vote for an Anti-Municipal Broadband Bill!

Message: As a consumer, I was disturbed to hear the Revenue Laws Study Committee was prepared to vote for an industry-sponsored Anti-Municipal Broadband Bill on April 21st.  Please do not vote for this or any other bill that removes competitive choice for broadband service.  Our local communities should not be stopped from deploying 21st century fiber to the home systems other providers refuse to deliver.  Such fiber networks create jobs, keep North Carolina business competitive, and stimulate economic development, which will deliver needed tax revenue.

The same providers backing this bill that are not delivering service to unserved communities, or offer inadequate service in others, have had a decade to deliver the service municipal providers are actually providing today in our state. Instead of delivering, they’ve offered a litany of excuses and now want special legislative protections to preserve their entrenched market position.

As a consumer, I am fed up with relentless rate increases year after year.  In communities like Wilson, where a municipal provider delivers excellent service, the rate increases from cable and phone companies have stopped.  A vote for this bill guarantees we’ll be paying higher and higher cable and phone bills indefinitely, and that’s something I would definitely remember come Election Day.  Make no mistake — this proposed legislation is an obvious gift to the telecommunications industry at the expense of all of your constituents, including myself.  That’s why I am confident you will stand up and make your opposition heard to this and similar measures.

At a time when the FCC’s National Broadband Plan envisions 100 million households with ultra-fast broadband service delivering economic benefits, it’s ironic our state legislature is even considering impeding the very providers that are on track to fulfill that goal.

With 11.2 percent unemployment — the 10th worst in the country, now is not the time to put a moratorium on North Carolina’s communities considering a better future through municipally-provided broadband.

With all this in mind, I am confident you will deliver for constituents like myself and oppose these industry-backed bills.  I look forward to hearing from you soon on this issue.

For best results, use your own wording and talk about the broadband market in your community.  You can reference the excitement over Google’s fiber to the home project.

Here are the Committee members to write or call, including their district area and what they do for a living:

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

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

Phillip "Don't over-complicate this" Dampier

Promises made during election campaigns that are later dropped for political expediency are broken promises.

Those are wise words for both the Obama Administration and the FCC as they ponder what to do about broadband regulation.  President Obama campaigned on developing an effective National Broadband Plan and preserving the integrity of the Internet with Net Neutrality policies.  Both will now be tested in how they respond to a recent court decision which has thrown a wrench into broadband policy initiatives.  At issue:

• How Americans access the Internet;
• What kind of Internet they find once they access it;
• How much money is it going to cost at the end of the month for what kind of service.

These are all laid on the table of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski with a big bow attached, courtesy of Comcast.  The nation’s largest cable company threw a hissyfit when the FCC rebuked them for throttling the speeds of their Internet customers.  They sued and won more than they bargained for when the DC District Court ruled the Commission lacked the authority to regulate broadband as an “information service,” a dubious premise cooked up by former FCC chairman Michael Powell.  The concept was akin to a police officer placing you under arrest on the authority of a bottle of green tea.  Of course you could get away with that too as long as nobody challenged it in court.

Chairman Genachowski could choose to kick the ball down the field to be played another day by appealing the court decision or trying to get Congress to pass new legislation.  Or he can strike decisively and effectively by declaring broadband to be what it actually is — a “telecommunications service.”  Under that declaration, the FCC can implement its National Broadband Plan, which will dramatically improve access for rural America and promote better broadband service for those who already have it.  The Commission can also move forward on common sense Net Neutrality policies that tell providers not to interfere with online traffic for monetary reasons.  It can even give the Commission the authority to keep a watchful eye for the next clever scheme that benefits providers at the customer’s expense.

But that depends on Chairman Genachowski standing up to the broadband industry, their friends in Congress, and the inevitable industry-funded BS Festival from astroturfers designed to sucker people into supporting industry positions.

The threats and concern trolling are already parading across the Beltway:

• “The industry would declare war on the FCC“: That war has been underway ever since the litigious broadband industry first started running to friendly courts whenever it encountered a regulatory nuisance just waiting to be overturned on “free speech for corporations”-grounds.  Chairman Genachowski needs to borrow from President George W. Bush and declare, “bring ’em on!” He can fight industry propaganda about “lost jobs” and “investment” with facts found in every provider’s quarterly financial reports showing bountiful harvests of profits, while spending and costs decline.  It’s not the FCC’s fault Verizon fired more than 13,000 employees in the past few years.  The FCC didn’t tell Verizon to stop upgrading its copper wire network to fiber optics to remake traditional landline phone service into something far better and eventually even more profitable.
• “Congress would be upset by an overreaching Obama Administration”: That would mostly be the same Republican members who reflexively oppose every aspect of the Obama Administration’s legislative agenda.  Considering warmed-over health care reform is still being called “socialist” and an “apocalypse” by these people, there isn’t a Pick-Me-Up Bouquet in the world that could get them to support this administration.  Ordering a ham sandwich and leaving the Swiss cheese off would probably result in some members of Congress reciting Glenn Beck’s declaration the omission is proof Obama is working with lactose-intolerant high officials of the Chinese Communist regime.
• “Verizon, AT&T, and others will step up spending on Astroturf Campaigns”: If a consumer like myself can sniff out an industry-funded campaign to convince consumers to support policies directly challenging their own wallets, why can’t Washington policymakers?  The industry talking points rarely change anyway, and those shouting the loudest usually try to obscure who paid for the megaphone.  When in doubt, simply ask “is there any industry money funding your organization?”  If they won’t say, you have your answer.
• “But they’ll sue”: When are they not suing?  Of course the industry will challenge the legality of any policy that puts their quest for unlimited profits at a disadvantage.  We live in a system of checks and balances between private enterprise and public oversight and regulation.  The struggle for the perfect balance between the two will persist forever, but after an era of reckless deregulation and abdicated oversight responsibility, the resulting Great Recession should provide strong evidence the pendulum needs to swing in the opposite direction.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski

USA Today today published a piece on Genachowski’s coming decision which hit all the aforementioned bases.

Astroturf Campaigns and Legal Threats: “If the FCC changes the way it treats high-speed Internet, then “everybody in the industry would sue,” says Scott Cleland, chairman of NetCompetition.org, an Internet forum supported by cable and phone companies. “It would be like an 8.0 earthquake under the sector,” he adds. “Hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested (in broadband) in the belief that there’d be a market rate of return, not a regulated rate.”

Cleland is a notorious industry mouthpiece, but at least he openly acknowledges his strings are pulled by the industry that generously funds his anti-consumer, pro-provider rhetoric.

Republicans: The FCC’s two Republican commissioners have said they’d fight a move to reclassify broadband.

No surprises there, and you can expect most Republicans in Congress to also take the industry’s position on these matters.  Guess what?  They still won’t vote for you even if you compromise with the broadband industry.

USA Today, itself headquartered in suburban Washington, delivers up the beltway solution always pressed on pliable Democrats – compromise away your principles and split the difference:

If Genachowski wants to defuse the issue, he could try to engineer a compromise. For example, he could agree to take broadband reclassification off the table as long as providers make legally binding promises to offer consumer protections called for in the National Broadband Plan and to agree to treat all Web services equally. But it will be hard to please everybody as advocates gear up for a fight.

That’s the understatement of the year.   It’s also a classic case of reinventing the wheel.  What USA Today‘s reporter suggests is exactly what the FCC used prior to the Comcast case to regulate broadband — an “understanding” with the industry without clear-cut regulatory authority.  That lasted until the three judge panel laughed it out of court.  The FCC has no authority in its current form to make legally binding promises with an industry that contemptuously dismisses the notion it should have any in the first place.  Without reclassification, the judge certain to hear the next court case challenging the “understanding” will almost certainly throw that out as well.

Declaring regulatory authority does not, as the industry likes to pretend, mean that your Internet Service Provider will be saddled with 1930s telephone rules.  It merely gives the FCC the authority to move forward on its agenda to improve broadband, protect its integrity, and help coordinate a plan for the future that first takes your interests to heart, not simply those on Wall Street.

For a change of pace, let’s choose the clearly marked road of reclassification and avoid the deregulatory dead end of broken promises offered by the broadband industry or the equally awful decision to build a new road in a futile effort to win bipartisan brownie points.

[Article Correction 4/15/2010: The original piece laid blame for the classification of broadband as an “information service” on former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.  In fact, the classification was made by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who served during the first term of the Bush Administration.  We regret the error.]

Gerace

The former head of corporate communications for Verizon Wireless will now serve as head lobbyist for Verizon Communications’ New York and Connecticut region.

As president of the New York region, Jim Gerace will be responsible for Verizon’s corporate interests — including public policy, government and external affairs, regulatory matters and philanthropy — in New York and Connecticut.

Gerace began his wireless communications career with NYNEX Mobile Communications in 1986 as a manager in employee communications.  He went on to serve in a variety of communications positions and was named director-public relations in 1991.

In 1995, he directed the announcement of the merger between Bell Atlantic Mobile and NYNEX Mobile, then the largest merger in the wireless industry, and was named vice president- public relations and a member of the senior staff of the new business.  In 2000, he directed the communications for the merger of Bell Atlantic Mobile and AirTouch, which launched the Verizon Wireless brand.

Verizon has a track record of signing up non-profit groups to support its telecommunications causes.  In addition to providing corporate executives for board positions of various community service groups, Verizon financially supports a wide range of not for profit groups, many of which later turn up writing letters of support in favor of Verizon’s policy positions.

Today marks the first anniversary of news that Time Warner Cable planned to expand an Internet Overcharging scheme being tested in one Texas city to four additional cities within its service area.

Residents of Rochester, New York, the Triad Region surrounding Greensboro, North Carolina, as well as Austin and San Antonio, Texas first learned of the planned expansion of so-called “metered broadband” from a Business Week article dated March 31st, which has since accumulated more than 450 comments to date:

Web users, the meter is running. In a strategy that’s likely to rankle consumers but be copied by competitors, Time Warner Cable is pressing ahead with a plan to charge Internet customers based on how much Web data they consume. Starting next month, the company will introduce tiered pricing in several markets.

In April, Time Warner Cable will begin collecting information on its customers’ Internet use in the Texas cities of Austin and San Antonio and in Rochester, N.Y. Consumption billing will begin in those cities later this summer. In Greensboro, N.C., the billing changes will begin sooner. Spun off from Time Warner this month, Time Warner Cable had been testing a plan to meter Internet usage in Beaumont, Tex., since last year.

Proposed pricing models created by Time Warner Cable would have tripled broadband bills to an unprecedented $150 a month for consumers seeking the same level of broadband service they enjoyed a month earlier.  For a cable industry that was used to pushing through rate increases well above the annual rate of inflation, such an enormous rate increase was unprecedented, even for them.

For consumers willing to ration their broadband use, the news was slightly better — you’d still pay more for less service, and be exposed to overlimit fees and penalties should you exceed your monthly allowance, which was as low as a 1 GB per month for one proposed plan.

While residents of Beaumont, Texas had to endure these prices for several months prior to the announced expansion of experimental Overcharging, once news hit tech-savvy cities in Texas, New York, and North Carolina, an all-out consumer rebellion began.  Residents in Austin met with city officials to discuss alternatives to a cable company that threatened Austin’s high tech status.  For residents in Rochester, already coping with a 5 GB usage allowance for Frontier Communication’s DSL service, it was a clear-cut case of monopolistic greed.  In North Carolina, working to transition its way towards a digital economic future, an Internet rationing plan would hurt the economy of the entire Triad region.  San Antonio residents were equally unimpressed with the cable operator as well, demanding alternative providers.

Former Congressman Eric Massa (D-NY)

Consumers banded together on Stop the Cap! and other consumer-oriented websites to coordinate the pushback effort.  Protests were held, the media was engaged, and at least in New York, the politicians were not going to sit back in Time Warner Cable’s favor.  Former Rep. Eric Massa expressed outrage at the company for its new pricing plan and Senator Chuck Schumer personally called Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt.

A few lapdogs in the trade press and “dollar a holler” astroturf groups praised Time Warner Cable’s price gouging plans.  One even went as far as to suggest Time Warner Cable “took one for the team” — referring to a cable industry just waiting to test some Internet Overcharging of their own.

Time Warner Cable dispatched some of their social media minions to try and explain away the outrageous price increases, offering to “listen” to consumers with suggestions about how to “improve the plan.”  One, like TWCAlex offered “proof” consumers wanted this kind of pricing.  The disingenuousness of the effort rivaled Lord Haw Haw’s Germany Calling propaganda broadcasts on the Reichssender Hamburg.  Company officials ignored the overwhelming consensus that consumers didn’t want metered or capped service and then weeks later those who did submit comments were notified they were “deleted without being read.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Massa’s office began drafting legislation to ban the unprecedented pricing schemes, culminating in a bill introduced in 2009 to ban unjustified usage caps and metered billing.

On April 9th, Landel Hobbs, Chief Operating Officer of Time Warner Cable, issued a recitation of the reasons why Time Warner Cable felt justified in exposing customers to up to 150 percent rate hikes — reasons we’ve managed to debunk over the past year’s coverage:

With the ever-increasing flood of content on the Internet, bandwidth consumption is growing exponentially. That’s a good thing; however, there are costs associated with this increased Internet usage. Here at Time Warner Cable, consumption among our high-speed Internet subscribers is increasing by about 40% a year. As a facilities based provider, we’ve built a network that must be maintained and upgraded. We have increasing variable costs and we have to continue to invest in the network itself.

As we’ve since proven, Hobbs statements to the public obscure the facts in his own company’s financial reports which are remarkably consistent quarter after quarter: revenues for broadband service are increasing while the costs to provide it are falling.  In fact, broadband is rapidly becoming the most important element of the cable industry’s quest for fat profits.  Time Warner Cable, as well as others, have plenty of financial resources from the billions in profits they earn from broadband every year to provide cost-effective upgrades that benefit them as well as consumers at today’s flat rate prices.

Just a few weeks ago, Hobbs told investors consumers are so devoted to their broadband service, the company could raise broadband prices anytime they like.  Funny how “increasing costs” never came into the discussion there.

This is a common problem that all network providers are experiencing and must address. Several other providers have instituted consumption based billing, including all major network providers in Canada and others in the U.K., New Zealand and elsewhere. In the U.S., AT&T has begun two consumption based billing trials and other providers including Comcast, Charter and Cox are using varying methods of monitoring and managing bandwidth consumption.

As Stop the Cap! has illustrated repeatedly, such consumption billing schemes are despised by consumers -and- most countries see them as hampering their digital economy.  Australia and New Zealand have government initiatives to improve broadband service to the point where consumption billing and usage caps are a distant memory.  Canada’s usage based billing schemes come from market concentration, particularly from Bell which is by far the largest wholesale supplier of bandwidth in the country.  Their quest for profits, along with a compliant regulatory body (the CRTC) has made such ripoff pricing commonplace.  The result on Canada’s broadband rankings are clear as the country continues to fall further behind other OECD nations.  Canadians do not want such pricing, but when a duopoly is allowed to exist unfettered by appropriate oversight, the end result is always the same – higher prices for poorer service.  In the United Kingdom, several flat rate plans are available, with more on the way as the UK embarks on its own Digital Economy plan.

There are other reasons why such consumption billing schemes are in place in other countries – namely insufficient international capacity to move traffic back and forth outside of the region.  That too is being addressed.

That other cable operators are overcharging consumers or limiting their usage is hardly a surprise considering insufficient competition in the marketplace makes that possible.  However, Comcast’s 250 GB limit is far more generous than anything Time Warner Cable proposed, Cox rarely enforces their limits, and Charter recently announced it had abandoned theirs.

For good reason. Internet demand is rising at a rate that could outpace capacity within a few years. According to industry analysts, the infrastructure may not be able to accommodate the explosion of online content by 2012. This could result in Internet brownouts. It will take a lot of money to fix the problem. Rather than raising prices on all customers or limiting usage, we think the fairest approach is to move to a tiered model in which users pay more if they use more.

Hobbs’ reliance on the “exaflood” or the “zettabyte” theory of Internet brownouts comes courtesy of the prostituting, industry-backed Discovery Institute — the people who will cough up bought and paid for “research studies” that say anything the buyer wants them to say and Cisco, which makes a handsome buck off selling broadband network equipment to providers they panic with stories of Internet data tsunamis and brownouts.

Hobbs

Two weeks after the Business Week article, Senator Schumer flew to Rochester and joined a few of our local Stop the Cap! members and myself to announce the end of the nightmare — no more Internet Overcharging consumers in any of the three states. Even Beaumont was soon freed from the ripoff pricing experiment.

But Time Warner Cable promised that one day, they could be back with the same schemes, after “educating their customers.”  Stop the Cap! has spent the last year assembling an extensive record of just how unjustified these pricing schemes really are, and we’ve been educating consumers about how an duopolistic broadband industry is seeking to monetize and control as many aspects of America’s online experience as possible.

We’ve exposed dozens of astroturf and other industry-backed groups trying to peddle the broadband industry agenda, often trying to hide who is paying the bills.  Whether it’s scare stories about broadband brownouts, fear that oversight and regulation will drive away investment and reduce service, or the need to stop Net Neutrality — it’s all designed to protect provider profits, not help consumers.

There is nothing fair about Internet Overcharging schemes.  There has never been a true consumption billing scheme that charged consumers nothing if they didn’t use the service, and the prices being charged for consumption above one’s allowance are often several thousand percent above actual cost.  Indeed the CEO of Crown Fibre Holdings CEO Graham Mitchell, admitted the truth about such pricing schemes when he told Techday that where ISP’s engage in such pricing schemes, they don’t make their money in providing access to broadband; they make it out of data caps.

We have no illusion providers won’t be back for a second bite at your wallets, which is why the education effort continues.  Over the last year, we’ve expanded our coverage to promote better broadband, and to expose bad actors among the broadband cable, telephone, wireless, and satellite industry.  We’ll continue to expose lobbying efforts to legislate away oversight, consumer protection, and limit potential competition.  Stop the Cap! also continues to fight for improved rural broadband that moves beyond today’s satellite fraudband that delivers woefully slow, heavily limited and expensive service.  We’ll also coordinate efforts to push back whenever Internet Overcharging schemes appear on the horizon, and we won’t let go until such language is banished from customer agreements and Acceptable Use Policies, whether they are formally enforced or not.

One year later, America’s broadband users are safer from such schemes, but not yet safe.  Thanks to all of our readers for staying engaged.

Strauss

This week Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski appointed Karen Peltz Strauss Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Deputy Chief.

Strauss is supposed to focus on disability issues, among other things, and will help the Commission to implement the components of the National Broadband Plan that address access for people with disabilities, including leading the effort to develop a proposed Accessibility and Innovation Forum.

“The FCC has a vital role to play in empowering and protecting all consumers and ensuring they have access to world-class communications networks and technologies” said Chairman Genachowski. “I look forward to drawing on Karen’s extensive experience with telecommunications access issues to realize those goals.”

A news release from the FCC includes a brief review of her 25 years’ experience working on telecommunications access for people with disabilities.

But the agency forgot to mention Strauss also serves on the board of directors of an industry front group — the Alliance for Public Technology.  APT claims it represents the best interests of consumers, but considering who is writing the checks, that’s highly doubtful.

APT’s website suggests the group “makes policy decisions based on the potential benefit to consumers. The Board members themselves as well as APT’s member organizations serve the education, health care, social service and economic development needs of senior citizens, people with disabilities, minorities, children, low income families, rural communities, and all consumers.”

That’s true, if you, as a consumer, are for big telecom mergers like AT&T and BellSouth, which APT supported, oppose Net Neutrality, which APT feels should not be imposed on providers, liked the idea of Cingular being absorbed into AT&T’s empire of wireless, which APT also supported, and so on.

In fact, this group even praised Verizon’s willingness to invest in West Virginia:

Verizon has demonstrated a commitment to increased investment in advanced telecommunications capabilities. According to the company, Verizon invested almost $560 million in its Maryland network and $150 million in West Virginia in 2001 (2002 figures not available). Verizon added more than 31,000 miles of fiber optic cable in Maryland and 20,500 miles of fiber optic cable in West Virginia. Over 2.5 million access lines in Maryland now have access to DSL. Authorization to provide in-region long distance service in Virginia will facilitate Verizon’s capacity to build on economies of scale and scope in order to provide a high standard of service and accelerated deployment of advanced technologies to the consumers of Maryland, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia.

The only thing Verizon wants to accelerate in West Virginia is their exit.

Laughably, one of the reasons APT supports AT&T so much (besides the big checks the company writes to fund their operation) is:

With BellSouth’s entry into the Florida and Tennessee long-distance markets, AT&T began to offer 30 minutes of free long distances to its customers and inserted “thank you” messages into the time between a customer dials a number and the connection occurs. These actions demonstrate tangible benefits for consumers because of an increased number of competitors in the long distance market.

I know that makes me feel warm all over.  Who should I call first?

Wading through APT’s public policy positions unearths absolutely no surprises.  They exist to advocate for the interests of the companies that fund their operations, and that includes all the bully boys:

• AT&T
• CTIA
• Embarq
• Qwest
• United States Telecom Association
• Verizon

Despite this, APT writes with a straight face, “These companies give donations based on a shared vision for the ubiquitous deployment of high-speed telecommunications technology, but have no say in the governance of the association.”

Sure they don’t.  But then again, those checks would stop coming if APT began actually representing the consumers they claim to care so much about.

It’s disappointing the FCC would want someone so closely aligned with the interests of large telecommunications companies working to implement a National Broadband Plan that is supposed to represent the public interest.

It’s just another example of the Inside the Beltway Tickle Party, where lobbyists and “dollar a holler” experts flow between government jobs, privately-funded think tanks, and the private sector.  Consumers are only too aware that their best interests are not represented by employees whose loyalties change depending on what hat they wear to the office.