Keyser, West Virginia

Frontier Communications’ West Virginia roadshow continued this week as company officials continue to sell the company’s plan to take over telephone service from Verizon across much of the state.  But have they stretched the truth to sell state officials on the deal?

Paul Espinosa, general manager of Frontier, told a West Virginia newspaper the company “prides ourselves in taking good care of our customers,” claiming 95 percent of their current residential customers have broadband Internet.

“In some areas it’s DSL. In other markets we do offer fiber,” he told the Mineral Daily News-Tribune in Keyser.

Keyser, a community of just over 5,000, considers broadband high on its list of concerns.  They want it, but they also want to know it is the kind of broadband that will keep Mineral County competitive, particularly for small businesses that depend on it to reach customers.  The county created a Communications Infrastructure Council (CIC) to review broadband communications options considered vital to the community’s economic development.

Rick Welch, who serves on the CIC,  said the economic future of Mineral County depends upon high speed or fiber-optic Internet and not DSL, or Internet service which utilizes existing telephone lines.

Verizon West Virginia has bypassed the state for FiOS development, which provides a fiber-optic connection to the home, claiming the infrastructure costs are too high at today’s prices to satisfy Return On Investment requirements.  Frontier has never had an ambitious broadband agenda centered on fiber optics.

Frontier traditionally offers 1-3Mbps DSL service in most of the smaller communities they serve.  Frontier’s claim that they are currently providing customers in “other markets” with fiber broadband brings these questions:

• Exactly where?
• Under what terms?
• Is this true fiber-to-the-home service, or simply fiber connected central offices?
• Are advanced levels of service are provided to these fiber customers, or are the plans, terms, and speeds identical to traditional DSL plans?

If the deal goes through, Frontier would assume ownership of pre-existing Verizon FiOS deployments, but those were proposed and planned by Verizon, not Frontier.

“DSL will not bring anything to Mineral County as far as economic development is concerned,” he said, noting that high technology businesses require far faster speeds than DSL traditionally provides.

A Verizon representative tasked with trying to sell the deal that gets the company out of the West Virginia’s phone business said that something is better than nothing.

“To hear you say that DSL is not the future is troubling,” Verizon’s John Golden said. “If you are without broadband, DSL would be the future.”

The Mineral County Commission was unimpressed with Golden’s statement.  Commission president Wayne Spiggle told the News-Tribune a lot of businesses and those who work from home would not consider coming to Mineral County when they discovered only low speed DSL service available, commonplace more than a decade ago in other areas. Spiggle said real broadband service was essential to attract the kind of businesses Mineral County needs to succeed.

“Our mission and responsibility to Mineral County is to create an entrepreneurial garden, and high-speed broadband is essential to that,” he said.

The Communications Workers of America are also been fighting to warn state and local officials about the gamble West Virginia will take with Frontier Communications.  Considering the last three deals resulted in bankruptcy for all three, it’s a risk the CWA doesn’t think is worth taking.

“Frontier will wind up taking on at least $3.4 billion in debt from Verizon,” said John Johnston, speaking on behalf of the CWA. “Frontier has said they’ll expand broadband, but will they? With $3.4 billion in debt, that’s a lot of money,” he said.

Chuck Fouts, who serves as local CWA president said bankruptcy brings job losses.  “If you go bankrupt, the first thing that goes is people,” he said.

The union says the state should join their efforts to force Verizon to “do what they said they were going to do” and provide a plan to upgrade the state’s telecommunications system to fiber optics.

As it stands, Verizon sees higher returns from cherry-picking more urban areas for its FiOS service, and isn’t willing to provide the kind of universal service throughout its service areas that phone companies have traditionally provided for decades.

“How can Frontier provide the fiber they claim to offer in “other markets” when Verizon’s deeper pockets have thus far been turned out empty for residents in West Virginia?” asks Stop the Cap! reader Hyatt.

Investment firm D.A. Davidson downgraded Frontier’s stock last week, reporting they felt the deal would be bad for Frontier shareholders.

Moving the stock rating back to “underperform,” the firm was skeptical Frontier would be able to pull off the cost-savings it promised as part of the deal.  They also anticipated Frontier will have to finance as much as $3.3 billion of the debt (at 8-9%) it will take on as part of the transaction.  Perhaps more revealing is their prediction that Verizon shareholders who receive distributed shares of Frontier stock will likely dump them as fast as possible, remembering earlier Verizon deals that quickly led to falling stock prices and eventual bankruptcy.  D.A. Davidson warned potential Frontier investors to “at least move to the sidelines” during the anticipated grand sell-off, moving back into the stock only when it bottoms-out.

Kyle McSlarrow

Once again, the telecommunications industry is threatening to run to the courts if it faces Net Neutrality regulation, claiming their corporate freedom of speech would be violated by protecting the rights of consumers to access the content of their choice on their terms.

Kyle McSlarrow, President & CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the nation’s big cable operator trade association, delivered the warning at yesterday’s appearance at the Media Institute in Washington, DC.

In a speech clearly designed to put regulators on notice, McSlarrow dismissed Net Neutrality as a solution in search of a problem and a concept big cable would likely challenge in the courts.

“When all the dire warnings of the net neutrality proponents are stripped away, there really are no signs of actual harm.  Yes, there have been a couple of isolated incidents that keep being held up as examples of what needs to be prevented, but nothing that suggests any threat to the openness of the Internet,” McSlarrow said. “Internet Service Providers do not threaten free speech; their business is to enable speech and they are part of an ecosystem that represents perhaps the greatest engine for promotion of democracy and free expression in history.”

McSlarrow told the audience that the cable industry would be among the victims of Net Neutrality, claiming their rights to transact business on their networks could be trampled by an overzealous Federal Communications Commission.

Almost every net neutrality proposal would seek to control how an ISP affects the delivery of Internet content or applications as it reaches its customers.   This is particularly odd for two reasons:  First, there is plenty of case law about instances of speech compelled by the government – “forced speech” — that suggests such rules should be scrutinized closely. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it is an almost completely unnecessary risk.  All ISPs have stated repeatedly that they will not block their customers from accessing any lawful content or application on the Internet.  Competitive pressures alone ensure this result:  we are in the business of maximizing our customers’ choices and experiences on the Internet.  The counter examples used to debate this point are so few and so distinguishable as to make the point for me.

Beyond the forced speech First Amendment implications, however, net neutrality rules also could infringe First Amendment rights because they could prevent providers from delivering their traditional multichannel video programming services or new services that are separate and distinct from their Internet access service.  While the FCC’s NPRM acknowledges the need to carve out “managed” or “specialized” services from the scope of any new rules, it also expresses concerns that “the growth of managed or specialized services might supplant or otherwise negatively affect the open Internet.”   Meaning what?  Well, the strong implication is some kind of guaranteed amount of bandwidth capacity for services the government deems important.

McSlarrow is focused front and center on the rights of providers, not consumers, when he speaks about the First Amendment.  His constituents are Time Warner Cable, Cox, Comcast, Charter, and the other NCTA members, namely big cable companies.  In his view, any regulation or interference in how providers decide to deliver service is a potential violation of their constitutionally protected rights.  That’s a side effect of the nation’s courts recognizing that corporations have rights, too.

McSlarrow predicts a laundry list of  ‘doom and gloom’ scenarios that would befall providers if Net Neutrality was enacted:

• Net Neutrality could prevent providers from delivering their traditional multichannel video programming services or new services that are separate and distinct from their Internet access service;
• Net Neutrality would prohibit ISPs and applications providers from contracting for any enhanced or prioritized delivery of that application or content to the ISPs’ customers.  Under the proposal, ISPs wouldn’t even be permitted to offer such prioritization or quality-of-service enhancements at nondiscriminatory prices, terms and conditions to anyone who wanted it.
• Net Neutrality may mean that they [content providers] can’t provide material in the enhanced form that they want.
• Net Neutrality could tell a new entrant or an existing content provider that it cannot enter into arrangements with an ISP for unique prioritization or quality of service enhancements that might enable it to enter the marketplace and have its voice heard along with those of established competitors.

McSlarrow doesn’t offer a shred of evidence to prove his more alarmist predictions, even as he demands it from those who support Net Neutrality.  The kind of unregulated, non-neutral net McSlarrow advocates already exists in places like Canada.  What you see there is what you’ll get here  — threats of usage caps unless speed throttles are permitted, arbitrary “network management” that reduces speeds for some services while “enhancing” or “exempting” certain other services (usually those partnered with the provider), and in the end usage caps -and- throttles -and- price increases.  In Canada, the story extends beyond the retail broadband market.  Wholesale broadband sold to independent ISPs comes nicely throttled and overpriced as well.

McSlarrow maintains a see no evil, hear no evil approach to his provider friends who pay his salary.  Comcast’s quiet throttling of peer to peer applicati0ns that blew up into a major scandal when the truth came out was evidently one of the “isolated incidents” he speaks about.  That’s only the nation’s largest cable operator — no reason to get bent out of shape about that.

Let’s break down McSlarrow’s concerns and read between the lines:

• Nothing about Net Neutrality impacts on a cable system’s ability to deliver its multichannel video programming.  What McSlarrow is hinting at is that cable may end up using some of the same technology that moves online video to your computer to transport television programming to your TV set.  AT&T does that today with its U-verse system.  It’s basically a fat broadband pipe over which television, telephone, and broadband service travels together over a single pair of wires.  There is no demand that broadband must usurp your cable television package.
• McSlarrow is trying to be clever when he describes “new services” that he defines as separate and distinct from Internet access service.  That usually includes “digital phone” products which providers already exempt from usage limits imposed on competitors like Vonage.  If “network management” throttles Vonage while exempting the cable system’s own phone product, is that fair?  What about the forthcoming TV Everywhere?  Could a provider throttle the speed of Hulu while exempting its own online television service?  What happens if a provider’s own service is exempted from these throttles and can deliver a higher quality picture because of that exemption?
• “Bandwidth is not infinite.”  That’s something I’ve heard providers argue for more than a year complaining about their congested networks and why they need to impose controls to “manage them.” McSlarrow wants providers to be able to “manage” those networks by selling enhanced speeds for applications that partner with the provider.  Unfortunately, because cable broadband is a shared resource, those premium enhanced speeds will consume a larger share of that resource, naturally slowing down everyone else who didn’t agree to pay. Providers will say they are not ‘intentionally’ slowing down the free lane, but that’s a distinction without a difference to the consumer who will find many of their websites slower to access.
• Today’s model asks consumers to make the ultimate choice. If they want a faster online experience, they can purchase a faster tier of service. Now providers want to change that by establishing a nice protection racket — pay us for “enhanced speeds” or your content may not reach your customers at a tolerable rate of speed.
• It’s ironic McSlarrow is suddenly crying about how unfair it is content providers can’t purchase these “enhanced services.”  That’s a change of tune from an industry that used to accuse the large number of content providers who support Net Neutrality as freeloaders trying to use “their pipes for free.”

Customer demand for higher speeds and more reliable service should be all the impetus the cable industry needs to deliver quality service, particularly considering consumers pay a lot of money for the service and remain loyal to it.

McSlarrow’s final argument is a testament to the arrogance of the cable industry on the issues that concern subscribers.  A-la-carte channel choice, equipment options and expenses, usage limits, rate increases, and service standards are all issues this industry has fought with regulators about.  What customers want is secondary, and can remain that way as long as consumer choice is kept limited.  McSlarrow’s valiant defense of the rights and freedoms of the cable industry to offer extra freedom of speech through enhanced speed-privileges to content partners is more important to him and his provider friends than the rights of customers to not have their service artificially degraded to make room for even bigger cable profits.

Anne Milgram

Verizon New Jersey has agreed to a settlement to resolve a lawsuit resulting from its marketing, sales, billing and customer service practices regarding its FiOS television, telephone and Internet services. The agreement, made by Verizon with Attorney General Anne Milgram and the Division of Consumer Affairs, requires Verizon to pay $795,000 in civil penalties to the state and reimburse attorneys’ fees and investigative costs.  Verizon will also provide 1,160 consumers who filed complaints about the company with a $50 prepaid gift card or allow consumers to terminate their FiOS service without an early termination fee.

“Companies must deliver services at the terms advertised and represented to consumers. This settlement demonstrates Verizon’s commitment to do right by its customers and to adhere to our consumer protection laws and regulations,” Milgram said.

The action, originally brought by the New Jersey Attorney General’s office this past March, came in response to complaints from state residents who failed to receive promised flat-screen televisions offered as part of a sign-up promotion the company ran last year.  The company was also accused of running advertising campaigns quoting prices that did not come close to reflecting the actual total cost of service.  The Attorney General also documented instances of setup and installation fees that were promised to be waived by Verizon representatives, but were billed anyway.

[flv width=”600″ height=”356″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WABC New York Verizon FiOS Ads Deceptive 3-18-09.flv[/flv]

WABC-TV New York ran this report on March 18th exploring the Verizon FiOS problems leading to the New Jersey lawsuit. (2 minutes)

“Consumers want crystal clear television when they sign up for FiOS and they deserve a crystal clear explanation of service terms and conditions,” David Szuchman, Consumer Affairs Director, said. “This settlement ensures that consumers will get what they are promised when signing up for FiOS service.”

Verizon representatives said the debacle over the flat-panel television promotion occurred when a larger than anticipated demand for FiOS depleted their inventory.  The company indicated it is willing to work with consumers to get them the promotional products promised.  Going forward, as part of the agreement, the company will be certain the inventory levels of promotional gifts are better tied to expected demand, and substitute items of equal or greater value when necessary.

The company will also end its practice of charging consumers a different price than that quoted in advertisements or door-to-door sales. Consumers will no longer be charged an activation fee following a sales representative’s waiver of such a fee. An estimated first bill will also be reviewed with the consumer at their time of ordering. The consumer will also be advised of any estimated pro-rated amounts, one-time and monthly charges, taxes and fees.

Customers who order FiOS service through Verizon’s customer service centers will be sent a copy of their estimated first bill through email or first-class mail within seven days of ordering FiOS service and provided a toll-free telephone number for consumer inquiries as to FiOS service, FiOS promotions and promotional gifts, customer service and assistance, billing and other services.

[flv width=”600″ height=”358″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPVI Philadelphia Verizon FiOS Sending Refunds 12-08-09.flv[/flv]

WPVI-TV Philadelphia covers the settlement between the New Jersey Attorney General and Verizon New Jersey over it’s problems with FiOS service. (1 minute)

This is part one in a series of stories illustrating how telecommunications companies use a combination of public relations firms, professional lobbyists, friendly regulators, and outmaneuvered state officials to sell “improved service” to the public in return for regulatory “reform.”  Too often, that “reform” is loaded with loopholes and language that guarantees providers can break their promises, tie state and local regulators’ hands when bad service results, and ultimately stick you with the bill.

Over the past several months, several communities in New Jersey have been up in arms about Verizon’s reinterpretation of a state law originally written in the 1940s but “updated” just a few years ago, to mean it no longer has to pay telephone pole and infrastructure taxes to municipalities for using the public right of way.  Verizon’s “reinterpretation” of the state’s Business Personal Property Tax law surprised several municipalities who now face significant financial challenges as a result of the lost revenue.  New Jersey residents will likely make up the difference with a higher property tax rate.

On the surface, it might appear Verizon simply happened upon tax savings.  Verizon claims the law only requires it to pay taxes in communities where it has more than 51% of the area’s phone customers.  Despite protestations from local officials, Verizon has signaled its intent to carry on, estimating 150 communities will join the 50-60 already impacted by next year.

Changes in telecommunications public policy do not occur in a vacuum.  They happen when providers lobby for regulatory reform and bring gift baskets filled with promises for dramatically improved service.  Using a network of high priced lawyers and public relations campaign experts, companies can easily outmaneuver local and state regulators at every turn.  Unfortunately, by the time consumers (and sometimes regulators) realize they were left with a Trojan Horse filled with empty promises, it’s too late.

Some deals just bring consumers higher prices while others saddle communities with highly-leveraged, heavily indebted companies that eventually collapse in bankruptcy.

Just how did we get here?  In this series, we’ll look at New Jersey’s history with its largest resident phone company.  From New Jersey Bell to Bell Atlantic to Verizon, more than 20 years of questionable reform has left residents “touched” in their wallets.  The blame doesn’t rest entirely with the phone company, either.  Local and state officials were repeatedly won-over by professionally-run lobbying campaigns.  After repeated bad experiences, one might assume they’d know better by now.  Those communities no longer getting tax payments from Verizon can testify they haven’t.

Let’s turn back the clock to the dramatic changes in telecommunications that came with the 1984 breakup of Ma Bell and the Bell System.

Telecommunications Industry Sets the Stage for a Money Party

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/1977 The Bell System.flv[/flv]

In 1977, the overwhelming majority of Americans were served by “the phone company,” namely AT&T and its family of Bell companies providing local service. (2 minutes)

AT&T's Bell System in 1977 (click to enlarge)

For decades, telephone service was run largely as a monopoly by the enormous Bell System and several dozen smaller, non-Bell independent phone companies.  Telephone service was regulated by state and federal authorities who approved rate increase requests and made sure providers met service quality standards. Consumers did not own the telephone equipment in their homes – it was rented from the phone company.  Although often uninspired, Bell System telephones were often virtually indestructible, ranging from basic utilitarian black rotary dial phones to the flaunting Princess phone, which had a lighted dial and came in several colors.

As America began earnestly developing data transmission systems in the late 1960s and early 1970s, AT&T kept its monopoly intact there as well.  At the time, a cooperative arrangement between IBM and AT&T ensured most American businesses would probably deal with one or both companies for their data communications needs.

The eventual fall of the monopoly glory days of AT&T and its Bell System monopoly can be laid at the feet of corporate arrogance, particularly from one John D. deButts who became AT&T’s new Chairman and CEO on April 1, 1972.  deButts was AT&T born and bred, rising through the ranks over decades of employment with AT&T.  To him, anything smacking of competition was to be considered a duplication of effort and wasted resources.  AT&T, in his view, had already strayed too far from its past when Americans could go from coast to coast and deal with just one telephone system using uniform standards and practices of operations.  Consistency and quality should be the highest priority for AT&T, not squabbling with smaller competitors fighting with each other for customers.

A politically tone-deaf deButts infuriated a post-Watergate Congress hellbent on reform at a time when Americans had grown suspicious of big power players, be they political or corporate.  The confident AT&T executive delivered a speech before regulatory commissioners in the fall of 1973 that included within it, “[we must] take to the public the case for the common carrier principle and thereby implication to oppose competition, espouse monopoly.”

Not only did the speech irritate many members of Congress, it helped convince one of AT&T’s competitors, MCI to file a 22 count lawsuit against AT&T in March 1974, accusing Ma Bell of being engaged in illegal antitrust activities.

An even more important lawsuit was filed by the U.S. Justice Department on November 20, 1974.  The federal government also accused AT&T of antitrust behavior, claiming the company locked-up the telephone equipment business for itself, and was well-suited to crush any potential competitor from getting a serious foothold in the marketplace.  At the time, AT&T officials sniffed that the lawsuit was completely without merit and promised to fight back at all costs.

deButts ordered company lawyers to stall, delay, and roadblock the government’s case as much as possible, and the company enjoyed years of court delays.  The lawsuit dragged through several preliminary hearings and motions, until the then-presiding judge, Joseph Waddy, fell ill and had to reduce his caseload.  The United States v. AT&T was transferred to a newly-appointed District Judge named Harold Greene in September 1978.  The days of delay were over.  Greene quickly ordered the case to trial starting in September 1980.

While the court case saw some changes, AT&T did as well.  In February 1979, deButts was out, replaced with a far more conciliatory Charles Brown.  He changed AT&T’s tune, publicly welcoming competition into the marketplace, announcing “I am a competitor and I look forward with anticipation and confidence to the excitement of the marketplace.”

Having that attitude probably wasn’t helpful to defending AT&T’s case, and the company eventually threw in the towel, reaching a settlement with the government in 1982.  Overseen by Judge Greene, AT&T was promised it could keep its long distance service, Western Electric (which manufactured telephone equipment), and Bell Labs, the company’s research and development arm.  In return, it had to divest all 22 local phone monopolies.

America's newly independent regional telephone companies post-1984

Judge Greene, issuing a final consent decree to be effective January 1, 1984 formally broke up the Bell System.  The 22 local phone companies under AT&T were merged into seven Regional Bell Operating Companies, each to be run independently:

• Ameritech (acquired by SBC in 1999 – now part of AT&T again)
• Bell Atlantic (acquired GTE in 2000 and changed its name to Verizon)
• BellSouth (reabsorbed back into a newly reorganized AT&T in 2006)
• NYNEX (acquired by Bell Atlantic in 1996 – later to become part of Verizon)
• Pacific Telesis (acquired by SBC/AT&T in 1997)
• Southwestern Bell (changed its name to SBC in 1995, then acquired the remnants of AT&T in 2005, rechristening itself as the ‘new’ AT&T)
• US West (acquired by Qwest in 2000.)

The goal was to create several smaller regional companies not too large to face challenging competition from new independent providers entering the marketplace.

The result of all of this upheaval was competition in the long distance calling marketplace, but very little competition for local residential telephone service over phone company-provided telephone lines.

Still, for a time the post-breakup family of former Bell companies enjoyed stability and a less regulated marketplace, and several raised rates for local phone service, even while cutting long distance prices.  Customers could now buy and install their own telephone equipment, including answering machines and computer modems, and several competitors began to spring up to serve business customers.

By the 1990s, a new upstart appeared on the horizon that would potentially threaten the whole ‘arrangement.’  The cable television industry, subjected to a more regulated marketplace after years of monopoly abuse of customers, was looking for new unregulated add-on services they could provide to bring back the days of big profits they enjoyed just a few years earlier.  Two potential services: providing connectivity to the Internet and providing cable customers with telephone service.

When phone companies realized cable was planning to invade their turf, this meant war.

In part two, learn more about how the telephone companies went ‘back to the future’ and rebuilt the empire Judge Greene broke up.

Phillip "No, I won't take your word for it" Dampier

Did you realize if you are pro-Net Neutrality, you’re probably pro-piracy and a broadband hog?  That’s the new low achieved this past week by Net Neutrality opponents who are spending millions trying to protect their broadband fiefdoms from any regulation.  But even if they lose their fight to stop Net Neutrality when they find consumers won’t accept a throttled “network managed” broadband future, providers will be “forced” to control those dirty pirates and broadband hogs with usage limits and overlimit fees to help “pay for network expansion.”

It’s why Net Neutrality and Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and “consumption billing” go hand in hand.  What providers can’t profit from on one end they’ll try from another.

Longtime readers of Stop the Cap! already know how this scam works.  Canadian broadband users got stuck with both: speed throttles -and- usage caps and overlimit fees.  Assuming purposely throttled speeds are banned by Net Neutrality policies, simply under-investing in network expansion, despite the rampant profit-earning capacity broadband delivers, gets us to the same place — throttled speeds from overcongested networks and a convenient excuse to impose usage limits and other control measures to more “fairly” provide service to every customer.  Best of all, providers can pocket the overlimit fees charged to customers who exceed their allowance and train them to use less broadband with fears of more stinging penalty fees on their next bill.

Back in 2008, when Stop the Cap! launched, we challenged providers to provide the raw data to prove their assertions that they needed to impose formal limits and so-called “consumption-based billing” and abandon the lucrative flat rate pricing model that earns them billions in profits every year.  Of course, they have always refused, citing “competitive reasons,” “customer privacy,” or some combination of laws that supposedly prohibits any third party analysis.  Of course, they’re only too happy to characterize usage themselves, and we’re supposed to trust them — the same people that want to use that data to justify Internet Overcharging schemes.  Independent analysis?  When broadband pigs fly!

Now, telecom analyst Benoit Felten from the Yankee Group is asking the same questions on his Fiberevolution blog and issuing a challenge:

So here’s a challenge for them: in the next few days, I will specify on this blog a standard dataset that would enable me to do an in-depth data analysis into network usage by individual users. Any telco willing to actually understand what’s happening there and to answer the question on the existence of hogs once and for all can extract that data and send it over to me, I will analyse it for free, on my spare time. All I ask is that they let me publish the results of said research (even though their names need not be mentioned if they don’t wish it to be). Of course, if I find myself to be wrong and if indeed I manage to identify users that systematically degrade the experience for other users, I will say so publicly. If, as I suspect, there are no such users, I will also say so publicly. The data will back either of these assertions.

Felton’s co-author Herman offers his assessment:

Unfortunately, to the best of our knowledge, the way that telcos identify the Bandwidth Hogs is not by monitoring if they cause unfair traffic congestion for other users. No, they just measure the total data downloaded per user, list the top 5% and call them hogs.

For those service providers with data caps, these are usually set around 50 Gbyte and go up to 150 Gbyte a month. This is therefore a good indication of the level of bandwidth at which you start being considered a “hog”.  But wait: 50 Gbyte a month is… 150 kbps average (0,15 Mbps), 150 Gbyte a month is 450 kbps on average. If you have a 10 Mbps link, that’s only 1,5 % or 4,5 % of its maximum advertised speed!

And that would be “hogging”?

The fact is that what most telcos call hogs are simply people who overall and on average download more than others. Blaming them for network congestion is actually an admission that telcos are uncomfortable with the ‘all you can eat’ broadband schemes that they themselves introduced on the market to get people to subscribe. In other words, the marketing push to get people to subscribe to broadband worked, but now the telcos see a missed opportunity at price discrimination…

TCP/IP is by definition an egalitarian protocol. Implemented well, it should result in an equal distribution of available bandwidth in the operator’s network between end-users; so the concept of a bandwidth hog is by definition an impossibility. An end-user can download all his access line will sustain when the network is comparatively empty, but as soon as it fills up from other users’ traffic, his own download (or upload) rate will diminish until it’s no bigger than what anyone else gets.

Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) has a better idea to stop Internet Overcharging: the Broadband Internet Fairness Act (HR 2902), which would ban unjustified billing schemes for broadband

The arbitrary nature of what constitutes a “hog” invalidates providers’ arguments at the outset.  Frontier defines a hog as someone who consumes more than 5GB.  Comcast sets their definition of a broadband piggy at 250GB.  The gap between the two is wide enough to allow a small planet to slip through unencumbered.

If a consumer does all of their downloading from midnight to six the following morning, are they as much of a hog on a shared cable modem network as the user watching Hulu during prime broadband usage time?  Probably not.  If a cable provider tries to force too many homes to share the same finite amount of bandwidth available in a designated area, service will slow for everyone during peak usage times.  But nobody will notice or care if customers are maxing out their connection in the middle of the night.  The appropriate answer, especially for an industry that enjoys enormous profits, is to expand their network to maintain basic quality of service at peak times.  DOCSIS 3 upgrades for cable are cost efficient, flexible and often profitable, because providers can market new, premium-priced speed tiers to those who want cutting edge service.

Instead, some providers see delaying upgrades as a better answer, enjoying the cost savings that follow implementation of usage caps, limits and other overcharging schemes which artificially limit demand and further monetize their broadband service offerings.

Unfortunately, even if Felten got responses from providers, he’ll be forced to trust the integrity of data he didn’t collect himself.  Rep. Eric Massa has a better idea.  His proposed Broadband Internet Fairness Act would ban such overcharging schemes unless providers could prove to the satisfaction of a federal agency that such pricing was warranted.  The big difference is that providing “massaged” data to Mr. Felton might be naughty, but would be downright criminal if tried with the federal government.

Shouldn’t the central lesson here be to “trust but verify?”