(The Liberal Party is sponsoring an online town hall meeting this afternoon at 3:30PM EDT on the issue of expanding broadband in rural Canada.  Why not join in and demand that Michael Ignatieff commit to reforming the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which has landed Canada in a real broadband mess filled with Net Neutrality violations and Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing.  The CRTC has been so submissive to Canadian telecom, they might as well be their trade association.

Tell him rural broadband expansion doesn’t do much good if the existing providers, which got Canada into this mess, are still in charge of running it.  Real broadband reform requires a government committed to universal broadband that works for Canadians and doesn’t simply profit from them.  Demand Net Neutrality commitments from the Liberal Party and an end to overcharging schemes.  Universal broadband doesn’t mean much to Canada if Canadians can’t use it without fear of overlimit fees and enormous bills at the end of the month. — Phillip Dampier)

Ignatieff announces the Liberals' rural broadband plan at Contact North in Thunder Bay, Ont.

The Liberal Party of Canada has promised rural Canadians they will not be left behind the digital online revolution, unveiling a promise Tuesday to deliver universal broadband access to all Canadians within three years of taking office.

Michael Ignatieff, Liberal leader made the commitment as part of a series of planks the party introduced under its “Rural Canada Matters” platform to attract support from rural Canadians, who tend to vote Conservative.

“Too many rural communities can’t get access to essential services, because we don’t have the digital infrastructure to deliver them,” said Ignatieff. “That’s why I’m committing a future Liberal government to 100 percent high-speed Internet for every rural, remote and Northern community in our country.”

According to Ignatieff, using proceeds from a 2011 wireless spectrum auction, a Liberal government would invest to achieve an interim target of 100 percent high-speed Internet connectivity of at least 1.5 Mbps. A Liberal government would also seek to set a more ambitious goal for 2017, Canada’s 150th anniversary as a country.

The Liberals blasted the incumbent Conservatives for breaking their promise to deliver rural broadband to Canadians.

In 2006, Canada’s Telecommunications Review Panel recommended the federal government achieve 100% high-speed Internet connectivity by 2010. This goal was not achieved under the Conservative government.  According to the CRTC, in 2009 close to 800,000 Canadian households still did could not access high-speed Internet – or 20% of all rural Canadians. At the turn of the century, Canada ranked second in the world in Internet connectivity, but has now fallen to tenth place.

Ignatieff announced the plan in Thunder Bay, Ontario at an Internet access center run by Contact North.  He characterized the current state of broadband in Canada as threatening the country’s economic competitiveness and quality of life for rural residents.

“While railways and highways were the essential infrastructure of the 20th century, fiber optic lines, satellites and wireless towers, are the digital infrastructure needed to connect our communities and strengthen our economy in the 21st century,” said Liberal Rural Caucus Chair Mark Eyking, “In all regions of Canada, families and businesses depend on access to the Internet and mobile phone coverage.”

New Democratic Party (NDP) MP Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay-Superior North) praised the Liberal plan.

The Liberal Party is trying to capture an increased share of traditional Conservative Party supporters with a rural-focused agenda

“Obviously, country-wide broadband is a good idea,” Hyer told The Chronicle-Journal newspaper in Thunder Bay. “And there should be virtually no community of any size in Canada, and nowhere along the Trans-Canada, for sure, that we don‘t have high-quality mobile phone access and service. The United States has those things, and we should have them, too.”

But NDP MP John Rafferty (Thunder Bay-Rainy River) told the newspaper he’s heard it all before.

“Liberals have been talking about rural broadband access for a decade now,” he said. “The interesting thing is that he says rural Canada matters. But clearly it hasn’t mattered to Liberals for a long time, or else we would’ve had broadband.  They had a chance to do this. What they’re doing is regurgitating old promises.”

Rafferty said the Liberals first brought it up in 2001, and said then it would cost $4 billion.

“I’m not sure where he comes up with ($500 million).”

Another concern for the Liberal Party plan is the fact it relies entirely on private providers to deliver the service, something they have refused to provide many rural Canadians thus far.  In effect, the government would transfer $500 million dollars earned from large telecommunications companies buying additional spectrum and then hand it all back to those same companies to construct slow speed broadband services they can then profit from.

While many Canadian officials blame Canada’s large rural expanse for the digital divide, others blame Canada’s broadband providers who have engaged in usage-limiting schemes, increased prices, and throttled the speeds of certain broadband services.

North Carolina faces a moratorium on municipal broadband deployment.  On Wednesday, Senators David Hoyle and Daniel Clodfelter will introduce a bill expected to stall community broadband projects across the state.  The bill, which has yet to be seen by the public, should appear in the Revenue Laws Study Committee, co-chaired by Clodfelter.  We have heard the bill faces mere minutes of consideration before a quick vote, in hopes of moving it forward before the public finds out what elected officials are doing on their behalf.

Proponents of the moratorium argue that municipal broadband harms private industry and reduces tax revenue the state earns from those businesses.  But their argument lacks something — merit.  Missing from the debate are the actual numbers from the state’s largest telecommunications companies.  How much tax revenue does Time Warner Cable, AT&T and CenturyLink (formerly EMBARQ) generate?  We don’t know and the two senators (and the companies involved) aren’t saying.

Municipal broadband projects bring numerous benefits to North Carolina communities:

• jobs (taxpayers);
• high tech businesses moving into the state (taxpayers);
• entrepreneurial innovation that creates new small businesses (taxpayers); and
• benefits to the education and health care sectors (future taxpayers and keeping current taxpayers alive and healthy).

Make no mistake — a moratorium is just a stall tactic to protect current provider profits and avoid competition, all while giving them more time to organize a push for a permanent ban on such projects.

Why are Hoyle and Clodfelter only concerned with protecting incumbent telecom companies?  What about the rest of us?

Please join us tomorrow at the Legislative Office Building in Raleigh, and perhaps we can ask them.

Action Alert — We Need Your Attendance!

• Where: Legislative Office Building, Raleigh
• When: Wednesday May 5th at 9:30am, Room 544
• Why: Just having consumers in the room make elected officials nervous, especially when they are about to introduce a bill the public has never seen five minutes before a vote to move it forward in the short legislative session starting May 12th.

GOOGLE AND SEVEN INDUSTRY GROUPS OPPOSE NC MUNICIPAL BROADBAND MORATORIUM

Raleigh, NC – May 4, 2010   Google, Intel and six other private sector groups announced strong opposition today to a North Carolina municipal broadband moratorium being considered by the General Assembly’s Revenue Laws Study Committee, calling it “a step in the wrong direction,” “counterproductive” and “conspicuously in opposition to national broadband policy.” Legislation to prohibit municipal broadband deployments in the state is expected to be introduced and voted on tomorrow May 5. At least 45 individual communities in North Carolina, including Raleigh, Cary, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Greensboro, Asheville and Wilmington, recently applied to partner with Google on its announced plans to build ultra-high speed fiber to the home systems.

In a strongly-worded letter to North Carolina’s House and Senate leadership, Google, Intel, Alcatel-Lucent, the Fiber to the Home Council (FTTC), American Public Power Association (APPA), Atlantic Engineering, Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), and the United Telecom Council (UTC) stated that such a bill would harm both the public and private sectors. “It would thwart public broadband initiatives, stifle economic growth, prevent the creation or retention of thousands of jobs, and diminish quality of life in North Carolina. In particular, it would hurt the private sector in several ways: by undermining public-private partnerships; hamstringing the private sector’s ability to sell its goods and services; interfering with workforce development; and stifling creativity and innovation.”

“Enactment of a counterproductive municipal broadband moratorium would put North Carolina conspicuously in opposition to national broadband policy,” the letter states, and continues: “The Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Plan also admonishes states not to interfere with community broadband efforts where local officials do not believe that the private sector is acting quickly enough to meet community broadband needs.  Consistent with these expressions of national policy, communities across America are doing their share to contribute to the rapid deployment of broadband to all Americans.”

Those words echo a similar statement by FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn just last week in Asheville, NC. Commissioner Clyburn equated such a moratorium to denying citizens “the opportunity to connect with their nation and improve their lives” and called such a move “counterproductive,” one which could ” impede the nation from accomplishing the [National Broadband] Plan’s goal of providing broadband access to every American and every community anchor institution.”

A bill supported by Time Warner Cable and AT&T, the municipal broadband moratorium is being pushed by Senators Hoyle (D-Gaston) and Clodfelter (D-Charlotte Mecklenburg) for the alleged purpose of protecting the private sector and associated state tax revenues. But opponents to the bill argue the bill would hurt the private sector and even these representatives’ local constituents. Such a moratorium would terminate the City of Charlotte’s recent plans to build a multi-million dollar municipal network to provide broadband service to its public safety, educational, government institutions and the unemployed through the use of federal ARRA broadband funds. The bill also has the potential to make both Gaston and Gaston County less attractive to Google with whom they submitted an application to partner for a fiber to the home network.

“North Carolina should be lowering barriers to public broadband initiatives rather than establishing new ones, so that we and other high technology companies can spread and prosper across this beautiful state,” the letter states. At least 45 individual communities in North Carolina, including Raleigh, Cary, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Greensboro, Asheville and Wilmington, recently applied to be partners with Google on its announced plans to bring  fiber to the home to between 50,000 to 500,000 households in an effort to unleash advanced scientific, educational, medical and environmental applications through these ultra-high speed networks, now being deployed throughout the world and in China. North Carolina already has two municipalities, Wilson and Salisbury, deploying these fiber systems to their residents.

Jay Ovittore, co-Director at Communities United for Broadband says, “A moratorium or any other barriers to “real” next generation broadband deployment would be a leap in the wrong direction for North Carolina’s citizens and for North Carolina’s economy.”  Communities United for Broadband is a citizen run advocacy group that promotes the exchange of ideas between communities, both rural and urban, to find the best solutions for their broadband needs.  You can find Communities United for Broadband on Facebook at http://bit.ly/aW6skP and on Twitter at http://twitter.com/CUFB

For more information:

www.broadband4everyonenc.com

http://groups.google.com/group/nc-public-broadband

http://stopthecap.com/2010/04/28/fcc-commissioner-mignon-clyburn-speaks-in-favor-of-municipal-broadband-projects-at-seatoa-conference/

http://www.muninetworks.org/

The Fiber to the Home Council also sent a separate letter to North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue.

You can continue to write the legislators who are pushing this industry written legislation.  Trust me they are hearing you. Be nice, but let them know you do not want a moratorium on muni-broadband, it will hurt economic development in our state and you want what the rest of the world enjoys for broadband access.

• Sen. Daniel Gray Clodfelter (Co-Chair) Mecklenberg [email protected] (919) 715-8331 Democrat (704) 331-1041 Attorney
• Sen. Peter Samuel Brunstetter Forsyth [email protected] (919) 733-7850 Republican (336) 747-6604 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. Jerry W. Tillman Montgomery, Randolph [email protected] (919) 733-5870 Republican (336) 431-5325 Ret’d school 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

Don’t forget to thank those we have identified as on our side of the issue, for being forward thinking and truly representing the people:

• Sen. Daniel T. Blue, Jr. Wake [email protected] (919) 733-5752 Democrat (919) 833-1931 Attorney
• Sen. Fletcher Lee Hartsell, Jr. Cabarrus, Iredell [email protected] (919) 733-7223 Republican (704) 786-5161 Attorney
• Sen. Josh Stein Wake [email protected] (919)715-6400 Democrat (919)715-6400 Lawyer
• Rep. Paul Luebke (Co-Chair) Durham [email protected] 919-733-7663 Democrat 919-286-0269 College Teacher
• Rep. Jennifer Weiss Wake [email protected] 919-715-3010 Democrat 919-715-3010 Lawyer-Mom

Lauderback

Establishing a free and open marketplace for competitive broadband is impossible unless the Federal Communications Commission asserts its authority and enacts strong Net Neutrality protections.

Those are the views of self-proclaimed libertarian-leaner Jim Lauderback who runs Revision3, an Internet-based television network.

Penning a column in today’s Forbes, Lauderback strongly believes broadband services should be reclassified as a Title II common carrier service, and should be regulated by the Federal Communications Commission.

I fundamentally believe that customers should have unencumbered access to any service they wish to use or run, up to the bandwidth limits that they have purchased. The big broadband companies should be prohibited from granting favored bandwidth and quality of service preference to any site or application.

Why? Because Verizon, AT&T and Comcast are for-profit companies, and without restrictions they could–and probably would–grant preferred network access to their own services. Imagine the power Comcast could wield to promote its own video networks, particularly if the NBC merger is approved. Why wouldn’t Comcast ensure that NBC, G4, Syfy and MSNBC look great when streamed over its broadband network, while simultaneously throttling YouTube, CBS’ TV.com, movie and sports streams from Netflix and Major League Baseball, along with any other non-company owned video services (including those from my company, Revision3)? Comcast, Verizon and AT&T are in business to make money, and anything that will make their owned and operated networks more successful is just good business. It works for them, but not for their customers.

Lauderback declares today’s broadband marketplace a oligarchy — one cable and one phone provider.  With the increasing prevalence of term commitments, bundling, and other contractual obligations, many of today’s providers are successfully locking their customers in place.

“Service bundling gives these two even more power over their customers and makes it even harder to switch,” he writes. “I discovered this first hand last week, when I tried to move from AT&T’s increasingly spotty DSL service to Comcast. Comcast was happy to take my money, but it would have cost me almost twice as much unless I also shifted my TV and local phone service to Comcast.”

Those who support open hand-to-hand competitive combat in a free market understand that healthy competition cannot exist when a handful of players get to control how the game is played.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marvin Ammori, a CyberLaw Advocate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<

p style=”text-align: center; padding-left: 30px;”>

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/PBS Bill Moyers Michael Copps Interview About Net Neutrality 4-23-10.flv[/flv]

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

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

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

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

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