One of the more far out there arguments against Net Neutrality has consistently come from conservative astroturf groups, who receive plenty of corporate funding to advocate a pro-business agenda using arguments that appeal to a conservative audience.

Newsmax, one of the more widely-read conservative websites, has gone all out on the theory that Net Neutrality is an attempt by President Barack Obama to take control of the Internet, potentially even leading to censorship.  In an unconvincing video segment, Newsmax.TV reporter Ashley Martella interviews Ryan Radia, an Information Policy Analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a pro-business think tank.

Newsmax TV: Net Neutrality is a "regulatory power grab" (4 minutes)

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>(Note: Because Google video ads auto-play without your consent, which we do not agree with at Stop the Cap!, clicking the image will launch a new browser window to take you to Newsmax’s site to play the video there.)

A number of conservative blogs and news sources have latched onto one echo chamber claim: “CBS News recently reported that a cyber security bill would give Obama the emergency powers he’d need to control the Internet.”  When a link to the actual report is not provided, that should ring warning bells in your head.  Unfortunately, too many people simply accept statements as fact and never bother to check them out.  If Katie Courac is warning the country about an Obama power grab online, I want to know about it.

Stop the Cap! is one of the few, the proud, the fact checkers.

As with most of the memes attacking Net Neutrality on political grounds, there is considerable exaggeration at work here.  We could find two references on CBS News’ website to the aforementioned claim, and both turned out not to be news reports, but one blog entry and a reprinted news article from a conservative news site¹:

• Senate Proposal Gives President Authority Over Internet, by Declan McCullagh, a senior correspondent for CBS News’ Web site.  (August 28, 2009)
• An Unconstitutional Internet Power Grab, by Bruce Henderson, reprinted with permission from The New Ledger, a conservative news site founded by Ben Domenech of RedState blog fame. (September 1, 2009)

An Associated Press wire story this past weekend covering proposed legislation also appears on CBS News (and thousands of other websites).

At issue is S.773, The Cybersecurity Act of 2009, a Senate bill introduced by Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) to establish an effective defense against cyber attacks on the United States.  Some early drafts of the proposed bill had some language, long since discarded, that could have raised privacy concerns, but it’s disingenuous at best to suggest this bill’s language, known to Newsmax and others propagating these near-hysterical conspiracy theories, would give any power to the Obama Administration to silence dissent and “control the Internet.”

In fact, this legislation does not even originate with the White House.  Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, de-fanged the hysteria back in late August in a statement:

The President of the United States has always had the Constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the President’s authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a “government shut down or takeover of the internet” and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the President directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government’s response.

Radia, for his part, illustrates the effort to co-opt conservatives who distrust the Obama Administration into coming along for the ride for an industry friendly snowjob opposing Net Neutrality, with helpful prodding from Martella:

Martella: Could this lead to censorship?

Radia: There is the possibility of that.  What we have seen lately is the Obama Administration and agency officials attempt to increase their power over government networks.  Just a few weeks ago, CBS News reported that a cyber security bill would give Obama emergency powers to control the Internet.  Under a Net Neutrality regime, we could see the FCC tell companies what data they can and cannot prioritize.

Martella’s wild “censorship” reference was jarring because it comes out of the blue with no supporting preposition.  In fact, it’s pro-Net Neutrality advocates that fear providers could engage in censorship, because there have been instances where providers have done just that.  Net Neutrality impacts private Internet providers by demanding they do not block, impede, or interfere with third party website content.

Radia plays mix ‘n match with two different issues to create a magical blend of nonsense — the cyber security bill which conservatives fear is an Obama power grab and Net Neutrality’s consumer protections against abusive broadband network management.

The Obama Administration’s advocacy of Net Neutrality is not about increasing power over government networks.  CBS News did not report that a cyber security bill would give Obama emergency powers to control the Internet — it printed a blogger’s opinion and a reprint from a conservative news site that hypothesized such a bill, if it existed, would do that.  Radia defines Net Neutrality as the FCC telling companies what data they can and cannot prioritize.  Actually it just preserves the open network that has made the Internet so unique.  But on behalf of his provider friends, that issue is force-merged into the Obama “Internet takeover” theory, with the hope it will energize conservatives to also oppose Net Neutrality.

Radia’s arguments are hardly convincing.  He repeats the unpersuasive and undocumented fears that “Net Neutrality … is a rule that would stifle innovation, would reduce network investment, and it would decrease consumer choice in the broadband market.”  It sounds like he also bought a ticket to OppositeLand, where reality is defined as the exact opposite of the truth.  As is the case in Canada, it is the lack of Net Neutrality protection which stifles innovation from new high bandwidth applications that cannot succeed in a marketplace rich with Internet Overcharging schemes and speed throttles.  Online video for Canada is just one of several applications that have been stifled by provider controls.  There is no evidence Net Neutrality would reduce investment in networks.  Customers clamoring to use those networks and the diversity of online content is much more likely to stimulate network upgrades to maintain quality of service.  How consumer choice in the broadband market (which most consumers believe is hardly robust) would be impacted negatively is never explained.

Radia accidentally justifies why FCC policy alone is not enough to guarantee Net Neutrality protection when he points out Congress has not specifically authorized the FCC to get involved in the network management of service providers.  A bill in the House of Representatives would do just that, however.

Radia’s assumptions that consumers are pleased with the competitive marketplace, particularly for wireless, are dubious at best, particularly when he makes this stunning statement:

“If you want a walled garden, a device where a company controls and helps guide the user experience, you can get an iPhone.”

Of course, many iPhone users have complained openly and loudly about the fact they are stuck with AT&T — AT&T retains an exclusive arrangement with Apple in the United States to sell the phone for use on AT&T’s network.  They also aren’t too happy being limited by both companies in selecting applications to run on the phone, something managed by Apple and AT&T unless the customer “jailbreaks” the phone to bypass the restrictions.  The result is a stifled iPhone user experience on an overloaded AT&T wireless network, higher pricing on service plans for the iPhone, and consumer choice limited to deciding whether to live with these restrictions or go without.

Radia suggests Net Neutrality is being pushed just by a handful of “so-called consumer groups that believe that since their preferences are not being matched in the market, that they should use the hand of government to force these rules upon the private sector.”  His problem with that is that he believes (along with the providers who spend millions lobbying) that consumers are well served by today’s marketplace filled with proprietary business models.

Of course, real consumer groups can’t exist without consumers that actually support them, and as we’ve documented since this site launched, consumers are not well served by the limited competitive marketplace, and the abuses that come from that, and they’ve complained loudly and regularly to those providers about those practices.  They aren’t listening.  So consumers are turning to the public officials who regulate and oversee such markets to attempt to force them to listen.

Newsmax’s efforts to give mainstream media credibility to a sensationalized claim was only outdone by Radia himself on his own bio page:

Ryan is a frequent contributor to the Technology Liberation Front, the technology policy blog dedicated to preserving freedom and liberty in the information age. His ideas have been referenced by technology writers including Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic’s Daily Dish, Karl Bode of Broadband Reports, and Mike Masnick of Techdirt.

Karl Bode found it ironic Radia would reference a piece he wrote, because Bode’s article trashed Radia and his friends for claiming a cable price war was resulting in consumer savings.  The Techdirt piece Radia links to didn’t exactly give him a seal of approval either:

Last month, we mocked some mainstream press reports claiming both a broadband price war and the fact that broadband prices were rising. There doesn’t really seem to be much of either, as broadband prices have remained pretty constant, even accounting for promotional pricing. However, with Comcast getting ready to significantly boost speeds (yes, with its broadband caps, Ryan Radia is wondering if the actual “price war” is hidden by the fact that it’s in price per megabit.

In other words, if prices remain constant, but your speed doubles, isn’t that something of a price decrease? Radia chalks this all up to competition in the market, but it should at least be admitted that the speeds (even these higher speeds) still pale in comparison to other countries where there is much greater competition than in the US, where most people still are limited to only two real choices. Either way, as someone who’s still stuck on a home connection that runs around 500k (below the new 768k cutoff for “real” broadband) despite being in the center of Silicon Valley, I’m still not convinced that these greater speeds are so readily available yet.

We invite Radia to link to our spanking as well.

¹Using search terms “obama emergency internet” and “emergency internet” on the CBS News website.

AT&T: 'Google is violating the Net Neutrality tenets we spend millions to make sure don't become law.'

AT&T sent a letter late last week to the Federal Communications Commission calling out Google Voice, the free adjunct Voice Over IP service being tested by Google, for blocking calls to certain high cost telephone numbers.  Robert W. Quinn, Jr., Senior Vice President of AT&T’s Federal Regulatory office complained that AT&T has been forced to complete those calls while Google Voice does not, suggesting that might be the equivalent of a Net Neutrality violation, if not an outright violation of call completion requirements established by the Commission.

These days, almost anything can be defined as a Net Neutrality violation.  If I was a vegetarian and I blocked meat products from my home, I’d probably get a letter from AT&T’s counsel too.

At issue here is the exploitation of a loophole that was established by telecom regulators to provide extra financial support to rural community telephone companies.  When a person places a long distance call, part of the charge is paid to the company that connects the call from the long distance network to the recipient’s telephone line.  The fees long distance companies pay vary depending on the size of the community and the length of the call.  Small rural areas enjoy a higher call completion fee than urban areas do.

Some enterprising individuals discovered the fees being paid to rural phone companies were higher than the actual costs to provide the service.  Traditionally, that extra money was used by rural phone companies, often independent or customer-owned cooperatives, to keep their service costs down and to maintain their equipment.  Long distance carriers didn’t care because the number of calls to these rural communities was comparatively small.

But what would happen if a company set up a telephone number to receive lots of calls that would otherwise never be made to such rural communities?  The result could be a financial windfall.  That possibility persuaded a few rural phone companies to let third parties offer international calling, conference calling and adult phone chat services for no charge beyond whatever the customer has to pay to make the long distance call.  In return, the phone company kicks back a significant portion of the extra income they earn from “call completion fees” to the service providers.

AT&T, among others, got wind of this arrangement and flipped out, complaining they were paying an ever increasing bill from rural phone companies hosting these services.  Anyone with an unlimited long distance plan could call these numbers for free and stay connected for hours at a time.

Unsurprisingly, AT&T blocked calls to these services for a period in 2007, refused to pay for some prior charges, and sued several phone companies.

AT&T/Cingular spokesperson Mark Siegel told Ars that the reason the company has decided to start blocking these services is because high volumes of calls to similar services are costly, and the cost of those calls aren’t passed on to the customer. “We have to pay terminating access for every minute the person is on the line,” Siegel explained. “Typically these companies run them through local exchange companies that charge high access rates, so we end up paying high access charges.”

The FCC intervened and said phone companies cannot arbitrarily block customer access to phone numbers, and the blocks were removed.  Today, the free international long distance calling services are basically gone, but free conference calling lines and adult sex chat services remain, and Google Voice has now discovered the perils of connecting calls, for free, to these services.  So now they have blocked access as well.  Google Voice beta testers report calling blocked numbers results in perpetual busy signals.

AT&T pounced in a letter to the FCC:

Numerous press reports indicate that Google is systematically blocking telephone calls from consumers that use Google Voice to call telephone numbers in certain rural communities.  By blocking these calls, Google is able to reduce its access expenses. Other providers, including those with which Google Voice competes, are banned from call blocking because in June 2007, the Wireline Competition Bureau emphatically declared that all carriers are prohibited from pursuing “self help actions such as call blocking.” The Bureau expressed concern that call blocking “may degrade the reliability of the nation’s telecommunications network.” Google Voice thus has claimed for itself a significant advantage over providers offering competing services.

But even if Google Voice is instead an “Internet application,” Google would still be subject to the Commission’s Internet Policy Statement, whose fourth principle states that “consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.” This fourth principle cannot fairly be read to embrace competition in which one provider unilaterally appropriates to itself regulatory advantages over its competitors. By openly flaunting the call blocking prohibition that applies to its competitors, Google is acting in a manner inconsistent with the fourth principle.

Ironically, Google is also flouting the so-called “fifth principle of non-discrimination” for which Google has so fervently advocated (Net Neutrality). According to Google, non-discrimination ensures that a provider “cannot block fair access” to another provider. But that is exactly what Google is doing when it blocks calls that Google Voice customers make to telephone numbers associated with certain local exchange carriers. The Financial Times aptly recognized this fundamental flaw in Google’s position: “network neutrality is similar to common carriage because it enforces non-discrimination . . . Google is arguing for others to be bound by network neutrality and, on the other hand arguing against itself being bound by common carriage,” which leaves Google with an “intellectual contradiction” in its argument.

Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel for Google, fired back a response on the Google Policy Blog countering AT&T’s arguments:

Google Voice’s goal is to provide consumers with free or low-cost access to as many advanced communications features as possible. In order to do this, Google Voice does restrict certain outbound calls from our Web platform to these high-priced destinations. But despite AT&T’s efforts to blur the distinctions between Google Voice and traditional phone service, there are many significant differences:

• Unlike traditional carriers, Google Voice is a free, Web-based software application, and so not subject to common carrier laws.
  
• Google Voice is not intended to be a replacement for traditional phone service — in fact, you need an existing land or wireless line in order to use it. Importantly, users are still able to make outbound calls on any other phone device.
• Google Voice is currently invitation-only, serving a limited number of users.

AT&T is trying to make this about Google’s support for an open Internet, but the comparison just doesn’t fly. The FCC’s open Internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers — not the creators of Web-based software applications. Even though the FCC does not have jurisdiction over how software applications function, AT&T apparently wants to use the regulatory process to undermine Web-based competition and innovation.

The HissyFit is on, and it’s almost entirely beside the point.  Once again, Net Neutrality is being used as a convenient flogging tool, this time by a company that spends millions to oppose it, yet sanctimoniously demands others should comply with its founding principles.  While the systematic blocking of telephone numbers may echo the kinds of concerns Net Neutrality protection is designed to address, it’s not as on point as AT&T would have you believe.

Google Voice isn’t even close to being a replacement for telephone service.  It’s not even openly available to the public.  AT&T would have had a stronger argument complaining about MagicJack, the dongle that lets you make unlimited long distance calls for $20 a year.  They go beyond just blocking some of the conference calling services — they actually redirect calls to a recording encouraging customers to instead use one of their own partners instead.

Dan Borislow, inventor of MagicJack says “it is not illegal for us to block calls to [conference calling numbers.]  We have invited other conference calling companies to interconnect to us for free, so we can complete our customers’ calls to them.”

Google’s public policy response isn’t as satisfying as it could have been either, and uses some weak arguments in rebuttal.  Much more important and on point is finding a way to address call completion fee loopholes through a change in telecommunications policy.  The telecommunications landscape has fundamentally changed in ways that existing rules could not have anticipated.  Addressing that issue would provide immediate relief to both AT&T and Google Voice without dragging consumer interests into a telecom policy cat fight.

Unfortunately, that’s a point far too fine for many media types, bloggers, and the sock puppets to understand (or desire to), and the campaign of Waving Shiny Keys of Distraction will carry on, and may have been AT&T’s intention in making such an argument in the first place.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who often adopts anti-consumer positions on telecommunications policy, has written a so-called “killer amendment” that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing proposed Net Neutrality rules.

Her amendment, informally proposed Monday as part of a House Interior Appropriations spending measure (H.R. 2996) states:

Purpose: To prohibit the FCC from expending any funds in fiscal year 2010 to implement any Internet neutrality or network management principles, or to promulgate any rules relating to such principles.

Hutchison’s amendment has several Republican co-sponsors: John Ensign (R-Nevada), Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), David Vitter (R-Louisiana), Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina),  and John Thune, (R-South Dakota).

Hutchison released a statement explaining the amendment: “I am deeply concerned by the direction the FCC appears to be heading. We must tread lightly when it comes to new regulations. The case has simply not been made for what amounts to a significant regulatory intervention into a vibrant marketplace. These new regulatory mandates and restrictions could stifle investment incentives.”

Ensign said Net Neutrality would punish a telecommunications industry at a time when it’s managing through an economic downturn.

“Any industry that is able to thrive should be allowed to do so without meddlesome government interference that could stifle innovation,” he said.

Brownback also has a history opposing the consumer interests of his constituents.  Back in May, he penned a letter to a Stop the Cap! reader in Kansas openly favoring Internet Overcharging schemes.

Public interest groups are calling on the public to express their displeasure with the Republican senators for their opposition to Net Neutrality.

One possible explanation for the sudden, strong interest by Hutchison and other Republicans to oppose Net Neutrality can be found in their respective bank accounts.  Hutchison accepted $67,300 in campaign contributions just from AT&T, her ninth largest contributor.

Combined, AT&T donated more than $400,000 among the six Republicans opposing Net Neutrality, and one of those senators, John Thune, used to work for a DC lobbying firm that was hired by Comcast.

The details were compiled by Sam Gustin, a reporter for DailyFinance:

Over the course of his career, Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, has received $220,914 from “telephone utilities,” including some $83,130 from AT&T, his second-largest donor, in the form of employee and lobbyist donations to his campaign and political-action committees. Sprint Nextel has given Brownback $35,550 over the course of his career.

Two of the co-sponsors of the bill, Sen. David Vitter of Lousiana and Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who have both seen their reputations tarnished after sex scandals, have been on the receiving end of AT&T’s largesse. AT&T and predecessor BellSouth have donated $82,050 to Vitter’s campaigns and political-action committees. And over the last four years, AT&T has donated some $61,250 to Ensign’s campaign and political-action committees. Verizon-related entities donated $46,600 to Ensign during that period.

During that time, AT&T has donated $63,750 to the campaign and political-action committees of Sen. Jim DeMint, the South Carolina Republican. AT&T is DeMint’s second-largest donor.

Sen. John Thune, the South Dakota Republican, has not received significant donations from the telecom industry since his 2006 defeat of Sen. Tom Daschle, then Senate majority leader Tom Daschle. But from 2003 to 2005, Thune served as a senior policy adviser to the D.C. lobbying firm of Arent, Fox, when its client Comcast, the largest cable company in the U.S., paid some $40,000 in fees.

[Update: Yesterday evening, Washington Post reporter Cecilia Kang reported that the Republicans were, at least for now, backing off on pushing for their amendment:

“While we are still generally opposed to net neutrality regulations, we have decided to hold off on the amendment because [FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski] approached us and we are beginning a dialogue,” said a staff member on the committee.

Hill watchers said the amendment itself represented standard operating procedure when attempting to block regulatory agency policy decisions, but characterized the Hutchison amendment’s chances of passage as remote.  Hutchison and the Republicans are in the minority in the Senate.]

Professor Geist

The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, the Canadian equivalent of the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, may be forced to consider American broadband policy before defining Net Neutrality and its role in Canadian broadband, according to an article published today in The Globe & Mail.

[FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s] proposal – to codify and enforce some general principles of “Net neutrality” – comes as the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is expected to release its own position this fall, after public consultations this summer that prompted feedback from tens of thousands of Canadians.

“The kinds of principles that the FCC is now looking to put into rules are precisely what the CRTC heard from many groups this past summer,” said Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa professor who holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. “The kinds of concerns that Canadians have been expressing have clearly been taken to heart by the FCC.”

Many Canadian citizens have been unhappy with the CRTC after a summer of hearings and policy decisions which have almost universally-favored Canadian broadband providers’ positions.  The CRTC seemed skeptical during hearings over the urgency to enforce Net Neutrality protections and stop provider’s throttling of peer to peer networks.  But consumers were even more upset when the Commission agreed with Bell, Canada’s largest phone company and wholesale broadband provider, and allowed the company to impose “usage based billing (UBB)” (Internet Overcharging) on wholesale buyers — primarily independent Internet Service Providers.  Canadian customers attempting to avoid usage caps and consumption billing relied on more generous policies from independent providers, policies likely to be revoked with the imposition of UBB, potentially making flat rate broadband service in Canada largely extinct.

In general terms, Net neutrality refers to the concept that access to all legal content on the Internet should be equal. The concept often comes up in relation to the practice of “bandwidth throttling,” where ISPs limit the transfer speed of certain kinds of data – such as the transfer of large movie files between users – but not other kinds.

Many large Canadian ISPs have argued that network management doesn’t affect Net neutrality, and taking away an ISP’s ability to manage its network results in worse service for a large number of customers.

Currently, there is no uniform practice among large ISPs in Canada when it comes to network management. Some firms throttle bandwidth during certain times of the day, whereas other limit bandwidth all the time, or not at all. A CRTC ruling this fall could go a long way toward implementing a uniform code for all ISPs.

“In light of what we’ve seen today, [the CRTC ruling] will be particularly telling because the benchmark now isn’t just what the CRTC heard during this hearing, the benchmark now is our neighbours to the south,” Prof. Geist said. “The CRTC will in many ways be measured up against what the FCC is doing in the U.S.”

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Phillip "I Can See the Problem" Dampier

Yesterday’s proposal by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski gets Net Neutrality halfway there.  That already puts us ahead of Canadian broadband, which is a throttler’s paradise, but remember — an eventual FCC rulemaking is not a law.  An FCC policy is only as good as the agency’s willingness to enforce it.  If a new administration decides Net Neutrality is not to their liking, they could very well appoint new Commissioners who agree, and while they may not repeal such policies, they aren’t likely to spend time enforcing them either.

Americans must insist that Net Neutrality have the force of federal law, and that can be done by telling your member of Congress to co-sponsor the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (H.R. 3458.)

Canadians need to immediately appeal to their MPs and ask why Canada is stuck with throttling broadband providers that completely ignore Net Neutrality when the United States not only has a bill to codify Net Neutrality protections but a regulatory communications body that is going to enforce it as policy even without a new law.  That’s a far cry from the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) which has spent all year rubber-stamping the wish list of the broadband industry.  That’s simply unacceptable, and Canadians need to tell MPs their vote in the next round of elections will depend on which candidate has the best plan to solve this mess.  There is absolutely no justification for Canada falling behind the United States in broadband service.  If the CRTC won’t represent Canadian citizens, perhaps it’s time to get rid of it and let them form an industry trade group, which isn’t far off from where they are right now.

Net Neutrality alone is not nirvana for broadband consumers.  Indeed, there is every expectation some broadband providers may try to slap more Internet Overcharging schemes on consumers and try to blame Net Neutrality for it, under the false “either/or premise.”  Too often, public interest groups and some consumers have been led astray with the assumption that one is better than the other, and that’s a false choice.  Both are extremely bad for innovation, broadband advancement, and consumer adoption and acceptance of broadband service.  When you engage in Overcharging schemes like raising prices, imposing usage caps, meters, overlimit fees and penalties, some consumers will decide it just isn’t worth it.  Few consumers will risk using high bandwidth online applications of the future worried about their usage allowance for the month, or the penalty for exceeding it.

Free Press Illustrates the Telecom Industry's Lobbying Frenzy

Internet Overcharging schemes are not dead, although some of the earlier experiments have been temporarily shelved.  Some smaller providers in rural and small cities are already engaged in usage caps combined with consumption billing.  AT&T continues its experiment in Beaumont and Reno.  Comcast celebrated its first anniversary of the 250GB usage cap by leaving it right where it is, unchanged.  Wireless mobile broadband is a 5GB capped experience all-around.

Although I realize it is difficult to generate intensity when there aren’t big bad actors imminently dropping Internet Overcharging on millions of broadband customers, this is not the time to keep the pressure off.  Let’s make sure providers realize the intense, red hot hatred of gas gauges, meters, and all of the other Overcharging schemes has not cooled a single degree.  You can do that by making another round of phone calls and sending messages to your member of Congress to support Rep. Eric Massa’s Broadband Internet Fairness Act (H.R. 2902.)

This bill does -not- get the government involved in regulating the pricing of broadband service, as some astroturfers have alleged.  It simply demands proof that a provider has a financial need to engage in these practices, and in the absence of independent verification, protects consumers by prohibiting providers from leveraging their de facto monopoly/duopoly status and imposing them anyway.

No government legislation alone is ever going to solve all of our broadband problems and concerns.  But some pro-consumer protections protect our wallets from the undercompetitive broadband industry most of us have to deal with.

Don’t be fooled by providers openly wondering why such protections are necessary.  It was ironic watching yesterday’s panel discussion on broadband when David Young from Verizon started asking what problem Net Neutrality was trying to solve.  He didn’t see any and had no problem living under the open platform standard Genachowski proposed.  That’s ironic because Verizon has nearly 200 paid lobbyists fighting Net Neutrality and related telecommunications policy spending well over $10 million dollars on it this year.  If Young doesn’t see the problem, why are ratepayers and shareholders footing the bill to address it?