Home » Public Policy & Gov’t » Recent Articles:

North Carolina Call to Action: Fight to Protect Better Broadband!

Q.  What moves faster than North Carolina’s cable and DSL service?

A.  Legislation to make sure the state’s telecom companies can continue to provide slow, expensive, and hit or miss service for years to come.

Big Telecom money has greased the process as H.129, the Telecom Monopoly Preservation and Protection Act is rushed to the House floor before North Carolina consumers know what is happening.

Residents have until Monday evening at 7pm to make their feelings known on this anti-consumer nightmare for cities and small towns:

  • H.129 will shut down the digital economies of small cities like Wilson and Salisbury just as they are primed to sell themselves as a great home for high-tech, high-paying jobs.
  • H.129 guarantees rural North Carolina will resemble the 21st century equivalent of Oliver Twist — begging for whatever limited broadband the state’s phone companies refuse to deliver.

The appalling truth is that the companies pushing for this bill only want broadband service on their watch, under their control, with their high prices and virtually no competition or choice.  And now AT&T is prepared to limit your broadband usage as well, establishing usage caps and overcharging customers who exceed them.

Do you want your broadband choices limited to these phone and cable companies?  Considering North Carolina broadband is ranked 41st out of the 50 states, it’s clear they don’t consider the state a priority.

But it does not have to be this way.  Where providers drop the ball, communities should have the choice to pick it up and run with it.  That is what Wilson and Salisbury did, and the result is the best broadband service in the state.  That’s a threat Time Warner Cable and CenturyLink can’t afford to ignore, which is why they want these networks stopped at all costs.

Defeating H.129 is critical to the state’s broadband future.  As written, it delivers no new broadband connections, does not promote or provide any competition, or help any individual or community.  It was written by the state’s telecom companies to benefit them, and them alone.  It guarantees you will be stuck paying ever-increasing bills for limited service indefinitely.

Tell House members they must do what is right for the voters, not what is right for the cable and phone companies.  Tell them to VOTE NO ON H.129.  The broadband saved may be your own.

You can find your individual representative and their contact information below the jump.  Please get writing and calling today!

… Continue Reading

Free Press’ Joel Kelsey Blows Telecom Talking Points Out of the Water on AT&T Merger

Gertraude Hofstätter-Weiß March 24, 2011 AT&T, Competition, Consumer News, Data Caps, Editorial & Site News, Public Policy & Gov't, T-Mobile, Video, Wireless Broadband Comments Off on Free Press’ Joel Kelsey Blows Telecom Talking Points Out of the Water on AT&T Merger

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Kelsey Sees Higher Wireless Rates After T-Mobile Deal 3-24-11.flv[/flv]

Getting the mainstream media to cover issues in the telecommunications sphere usually means wading into the “business news” sections of newspapers or watching business cable news channels.  Unfortunately, too often these outlets cater to the whims and preconceived notions of the audience — big business.  In the case of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, Wall Street loves the idea, but consumers do not.  Watch as Free Press’ Joel Kelsey handily deals with the gang at Bloomberg News, who are convinced mergers and acquisitions never result in price increases for consumers.  Has your cell phone bill gone up or down in the last three years?  (4 minutes)

Bell CEO: Bandwidth Usage Charges Are About Monetizing Video Traffic for Shareholders

Cope

In another example of providers telling the public (and lawmakers) one thing, while saying something very different to their own shareholders, Bell Canada’s CEO made a remarkable admission about why the company imposes Internet Overcharging schemes on its customers:

“As we see a growth in video usage on the Internet, making sure we’re monetizing that for our shareholders through the bandwidth usage charges,” CEO George Cope told listeners in a financial conference call last autumn.

That is a far cry from the story Mirko Bibic, Bell’s government affairs representative tells to anyone who will listen. Michael Geist, a Canadian syndicated columnist on technology law issues notes Bibic has told a different tale while appearing before Parliament’s Standing Committee on Industry to answer questions on usage based billing held in February.

For Bibic, usage-based billing is about “fairness” and solving alleged congestion issues.

“As for small businesses, which are generally on the same network as residential users, what you have is really a case where the congestion during peak periods is largely a residential phenomenon. It’s in that area that we’ve addressed the usage-based billing issue, and all we’re asking the CRTC for is to follow a fundamental principle of fairness,” Bibic told MPs. “If we asked 97% or 98% of Canadians if they would be prepared to pay more so that the 2% of heaviest users pay less, I’m pretty sure of what the answer would be.”

Bibic

Bibic’s argument has been repeatedly undercut by his own bosses, Geist notes.

In August, Cope told shareholders “our data revenue growth was 3.8% for our Residential Services business, particularly driven through an increase in Internet ARPU of 3.3%. And interesting, almost all that increase now coming from usage based billing as the demand for Internet use explodes through the use of video services, and we’re continuing to see an increase in the revenue per customer.”

By November, Cope was turning Bibic’s bandwidth “fairness and congestion” lemons into lemonade, celebrating data revenue growth of 5 percent, “driven principally by the bandwidth usage revenue being up 83% year-over-year.”

Cope not only decapitates his company’s arguments for usage-based billing, he also shines the light on who they will impact: if providers are to be believed that usage caps will only affect a tiny percentage of customers, how can data revenue be up a whopping 83 percent year-over-year. Are a handful of Canada’s “heavy” broadband users responsible for this growth, or are an increasing number of Canadian consumers finding themselves over the “generous” limits Bell has established because they used their broadband connections to stream movies and television shows.

As Geist notes, “no one should be under the illusion that UBB is anything other than a revenue maximization strategy in a market with limited competition, not one premised on fairness or network congestion.”

An Open Letter to Content Producers: Netflix, Hulu, Valve, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo

Dear Content Producer:

Your money train is leaving the station.

Customers are about to start making some very important choices about what they do on the Internet. AT&T announced this month they are going to start capping their DSL customers at 150GB per month and their fiber-to-the-neighborhood U-verse customers at 250GB per month, with overlimit fees for those who exceed them.

Comcast already has a 250GB per month cap, currently loosely enforced. Time Warner Cable has strongly advocated usage-based billing for years. Other telecommunications companies are all either supporting or considering these Internet Overcharging schemes for one reason, and one reason only:

It makes them absolute boatloads of cash.

Canada already lives with this reality. So does Australia, although they’re backing away from it. South Korea? Japan? Europe? Nope. Flat-rate Internet service is the norm there.  In Europe, mobile customers are demanding the removal of bandwidth caps American providers are still trying to attach to customers’ bills.

So how does this impact you? 250GB a month is a lot, and you’ll be fine? Sure. For now.

But what happens when Sony introduces the Playstation 4, or Microsoft announces the Xbox Next? Games aren’t exactly going to get smaller, and online distribution is far and away the future of games and software in general. Right now a game for the 360 or PS3 can be as large as 20GB. PC game enthusiasts routinely cope with 10-12GB game upgrades, and woe be unto you if you have to reinstall your Steam library and have 20-30 (or more) games to restore.

Internet Overcharging schemes make providers, and the lobbyists who do their bidding, very wealthy.

For the “Massively Multiplayer Online” game universe, incremental software updates and upgrades often come through BitTorrent, which exposes users to peer-to-peer traffic well beyond the size of the update itself.  In fact, as games increasingly turn towards Cloud storage and distribution, the traffic adds up.

For online video companies, your very business model could be at risk.  Netflix? Hulu? People are no longer satisfied with grainy, compressed video.  They want HD content, and you’ve answered the call.  But as consumers increasingly face 8-10GB per movie (at 720p, 15GB+ for 1080p), the usage racked up is going to blow past all of these caps.

Who knows what happens in the next five years, or ten.  Considering Canada, where a similar duopoly of broadband providers have lowered usage allowances, do you really expect anything different down here?  The only thing likely to be raised is the monthly price, which remains higher here than in most places around the world.

Google has the right idea with their experimental 1Gbps fiber-to-the-home network. The problem is, that’s only going to serve one (or perhaps a few) communities in the U.S.  The rest of the country will have to survive with ‘Ultra’ cable broadband packages serving up 10-20Mbps service or DSL that barely manages 6Mbps.  If you don’t live in an urban area, tough luck.  You will be lucky to get 3Mbps service.

Broadband service upgrades come painfully slow in the absence of robust competition.  Time Warner Cable and other providers are slowly starting to roll out DOCSIS 3, which allows speeds up to 100Mbps, assuming the average consumer can afford the Cadillac price that comes with it.  Many phone companies continue to bet the farm on their DSL service, which can also be expensive when it’s the only broadband service in town.

Against this backdrop, the rest of the world marches on, and beyond, North America.

South Korea? They’re promising national speeds of 1Gbps by 2013 — for $27 a month!

How has this happened?  Where have we gone wrong?

For starters, the broadband providers have very powerful lobbyists — quite a few of which are ex-legislators. Together, they wage their public policy battles on both the state and federal level, often writing the bills a compliant legislator is willing to introduce as their own.

Washington regulators take a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach to regulating super-sized corporations who can cause them trouble.

The Federal Communications Commission has adopted a “see no evil, hear no evil” approach to broadband, capitulating when a chairman occasionally strays too far into the industry minefield laid to protect their business agenda.  As a result, the agency is a toothless dog.  It recently adopted a “Net Neutrality” policy all but written by Verizon, who ironically is now spending money to fight the rules they helped write.  As a backup, virtually every Republican and several Democrats have teamed up to pass a Resolution of Disapproval seeking to overturn the weak-kneed Net Neutrality rules the FCC adopted.  Lobbyists are well paid to cover every contingency.

Consumers — your customers — can’t do much about this beyond writing their members of Congress and complaining.  But because they did not enclose a check or money order made payable to the respective politician’s campaign fund, the result will be a form letter response weeks, if not months later… after the corporate agenda is enacted into law.

We just cannot fight this battle all by ourselves.  Recognizing the realities of today’s politics, we need your help to fight money and power with money and power.

The video game industry earns billions yearly. You have already faced battles in Washington, so you know how this works. You can fight for your interests while protecting ours by ensuring broadband service is cheap, plentiful, and unlimited. The same story applies to other content producers, such as online video, software, and any other company that wants to move to online distribution to power their business. You cannot succeed if customers are too afraid of using your service because of a bandwidth cap.

The remarkable thing is that countries many Americans cannot find on a map are now beating the United States with better and cheaper broadband while we hand over our digital economic future to a duopoly. That will not buy us better service, just bigger bills for “fast enough for you” Internet access.

So that’s it. Act now. Act strongly. If you cannot stand up for your customers, you may not have any.

Signed: A gamer. A movie watcher. A music listener. An enjoyer of entertainment. A lover of the Internet.

Broadband consumer and reader Jason Ballew penned this guest editorial, with some editing and additions from Stop the Cap! editor Phillip M. Dampier.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!