In a stretch even the most accomplished Yoga master would never attempt, an industry-funded dollar-a-holler group has told Congress that Internet Overcharging is a useful tool to combat online piracy.

On Tuesday, Daniel Castro, an analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of combating “rogue sites [that] operate in a low risk, high reward environment.”

In December 2009, ITIF proposed a number of policies to help reduce online copyright infringement, especially in countries that turn a blind eye to copyright enforcement. The purpose of these policies is to establish a robust enforcement mechanism to combat IP theft online. These recommendations include the following:

• Create a process by which the federal government, with the help of third parties, can identify websites around the world that are systemically engaged in piracy;
• Enlist ISPs to combat piracy by blocking websites that offer pirated content, allowing pricing structures and usage caps that discourage online piracy, and implementing notice and response systems;
• Enlist search engines to combat piracy by removing websites that link to infringing content from their search results;
• Require ad networks and financial service providers to stop doing business with websites providing access to pirated content;
• Create a process so that the private sector can consult with government regulators on proposed uses of anti-piracy technology;
• Fund anti-piracy technology research, such as content identification technology;
• Pursue international frameworks to protect intellectual property and impose significant pressure and penalties on countries that flout copyright law.

Castro’s idea of allowing providers to establish “pricing structures and usage caps” stands out like a sore thumb in the context of battling piracy because it is the only recommendation on the list that targets every broadband user with the same broad brush, punishing every customer whether they are engaged in piracy or not.

It would be like setting up roadblocks and searching every vehicle in a city to search for a shoplifter.  Every individual is found guilty before being proved innocent, and will be forced to pay higher prices regardless of the outcome.

The ITIF proposal runs contrary to years of efforts by Internet Service Providers to avoid being involved in the personal business of their customers.  In 2009, major ISPs wanted no part of enforcing a proposal from the record industry for a “three strikes, you’re out” plan.  Verizon, among others, made clear copyright enforcement was not their responsibility to police, although many ISPs are willing to forward copyright infringement notices to individual customers.

Castro’s testimony goes over the top when he blames his own suggested pricing antidote for “hurting law-abiding consumers who must […] pay higher prices for Internet access to compensate for the costs of piracy.”

Of course, no ISP has ever suggested they would use the extra revenue earned from Internet Overcharging to combat another industry’s piracy problem.

His sweeping indictment against consumers extends beyond nipping at their bank accounts on behalf of telecommunications companies who help fund the group he represents.  He also suggests those who oppose his piracy prescriptions are either in league with, or defenders of piracy — or other offenders ranging from criminal enterprises to kiddie porn peddlers.

Castro’s support for usage caps to control illicit online activities leaves collateral damage as far as the eye can see.  It also simply won’t work for many forms of piracy Castro complains about.  ISPs with usage caps go out of their way to note even the most draconian limits still allow thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of songs to be downloaded — legal or otherwise.  Castro testified e-published books are now increasingly vulnerable to piracy, content compact and easy to obtain even with usage limits.  Combating websites dealing in counterfeit goods with usage limits isn’t even worth trying.

What Castro’s proposal will do is limit access to the growing amount of legitimate online video traffic.  While the author cites statistics that “one in four bits of traffic traveling on the Internet today is infringing content,” (taken from a report commissioned by NBC-Universal, who has a major interest in this battle) he ignores other facts.  Namely, more than three-quarters of all broadband traffic is legal and legitimate.  Nearly 20 percent of primetime broadband traffic is coming from companies like Netflix who are in the business of providing a legal alternative to video piracy.

Castro’s argument on usage caps simply falls apart: ISPs, who have never been particularly interested in being the enforcement divisions for Hollywood studios, should be given the right to limit broadband usage and raise prices to combat piracy even when most of that traffic heads for legitimate websites?

Public Enemy #1 for Content Theft circa 1981: The $1,400 VCR

Online piracy enforcement should not involve Internet Overcharging schemes, and arguments that it should only illustrate why so many consumers and public interest groups get nervous about industry-proposed enforcement mechanisms.  Too often, they ignore presumption of innocence before guilt, browbeat alleged offenders into settlements to avoid costly litigation — guilty or not, and turn over policing to an industry with a long track record of overreach to protect their business interests. The record speaks for itself:

• Demands to ban videotape recorders in the 1970s and early 1980s for “piracy reasons”;
• Tax cassettes and video tapes to cover alleged piracy losses in the 1980s;
• Tax blank digital media in the 1990s because of “rampant piracy”;
• Impose monthly “piracy recovery surcharges” on broadband users in the 2000s;

Now the industry wants to police the piracy problem on its own terms.  As before, the proposed solutions are worse than the problem.

Back to the future.  In 1981, ABC’s Nightline ran this report on the entertainment industry suing a VCR owner, retailers, and manufacturers for piracy over taping a television station with a videocassette recorder.  The concern in 1981 — technology was moving faster than copyright law could keep up.  Many of the yesterday’s players are part of today’s debate, including Universal, the company that purchased research indicting 20 percent of all Internet traffic as “illegal.” (Part 1 of 3 – 9 minutes – Courtesy WEWS-TV Cleveland, ABC News, and ‘videoholic1980s’)

Today’s piracy debate rehashes the same accusations of content theft, only the technology has changed.  One executive tells the Nightline audience he’s offended at being told the industry already earns enough.  The movie and television industry predicted calamity over the VCR more than 30 years ago, saying it would cost them billions in lost profits.  Hollywood eventually lost the argument against the VCR and their businesses turned out fine, earning billions in revenue selling videotapes of movies and television shows to consumers they were willing to sue just a few years earlier. (Part 2 of 3 – 9 minutes)

Before Washington is asked to join the panic-frenzy over online piracy, perhaps they should recall the same predictions of doom and gloom made by many of the same companies — predictions that were overstated.  Imagine if they had succeeded in banning the VCR?  Indeed, just as before, Hollywood stands to earn billions online when they make their content available for easy, legal viewing at a reasonable price.  Slapping usage limits on broadband consumers is the worst idea ever to promote legal viewing of digital content because it discourages customers from shopping for it.  (Part 3 of 3 – 4 minutes)

Don't allow a "dollar-a-holler" mouthpiece for the broadband industry to speak on your behalf. Get on the phones and send those e-mail messages today!

H.129, Rep. Marilyn Avila’s (R-Time Warner Cable) anti-broadband bill has been moving full speed ahead as she hurries it through the state legislature before consumer outrage gets a chance to block it.  Tomorrow morning, it will make a stop at the Finance Committee, where we expect the bill’s broadband-killing language will remain largely intact, thanks to hard work from Time Warner Cable and their astroturf friends.

While Ms. Avila is e-mailing copies of a so-called “independent article” about H.129 written by a man who received a $20,000 check from Time Warner Cable and works for a telecommunications company-funded think tank to her colleagues, you need to be e-mailing, tweeting, and calling your friends and neighbors and get everyone to call or write the individual members of the Finance Committee immediately.

Here are the points you need to raise:

1. Please vote NO on H.129, an unnecessary bill that does nothing to improve broadband in North Carolina;
2. H.129 is sponsored by the state’s biggest cable and phone companies to protect their anti-competitive markets and guarantee high rates for slow service indefinitely;
3. The fastest broadband at the fairest prices in the state comes from 21st century fiber optic networks that will be driven out of business if this bill becomes law;
4. Although Ms. Avila and Chairwoman Howard promised to protect and exempt existing community broadband networks from the terms of this bill, they have not yet kept their promise;
5. If the companies supporting this bill delivered broadband at the speed they are rushing H.129 through the legislature, North Carolina would not have a broadband problem;
6. If rural communities cannot solve their own broadband problems, who will?  The companies that refused to provide appropriate service yesterday, today, and will continue to not do so tomorrow?

Make sure you remind your legislator this is not a Republican of Democratic issue — it’s a consumer issue, it’s an issue for every rural community, and it’s an issue for the future economic well-being of a state that needs digital economy jobs.

Finance Committee Members

(click each name for contact information)

Powell

Former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell has been hired as America’s top cable industry lobbyist — taking over as president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

Powell’s tenure on the Commission started during the Clinton Administration after President Clinton signed the 1996 Communications Act into law, which brought sweeping deregulation and industry consolidation.  Powell’s appointment as one of two Republican commissioners came with an agenda for deregulation and competition.  Powell believed free markets were best equipped to manage telecommunications in the United States.

His regulatory record impressed President George Bush, who appointed him chairman of the FCC during his first term.  Powell’s service at the Commission was marked by good times for the telecommunications industry, which was rapidly consolidating even as it added new customers.  Broadband was a rapid growth industry and getting service to consumers was a priority.  Powell’s interest in broadband often walked over the interests of others regulated by the Commission.  Powell was a major proponent of the now-forgotten “broadband over power lines” concept, which alienated broadcasters and amateur radio operators because the technology used unshielded power lines which often reduced much of the AM and shortwave radio dial to a cacophony of digital noise where it was attempted.

Powell’s record was consistently pro-provider except in one area — he was a strong advocate of Net Neutrality, going as far as to fine Madison River Communications for blocking VoIP telephone service in 2005 – the first time the concept of Net Neutrality was enforced.

The NCTA is the cable industry's biggest lobbying group.

Later, he laid the foundation for a flawed mechanism to partially enforce Net Neutrality under an FCC policy that classified broadband as an “information service,” not a “telecommunications service.”  It was this policy that was the subject of a lawsuit by Comcast which objected to the policy framework as untenable and lacking in authority.  A DC Court of Appeals agreed and overturned the policy, setting the stage for the 2010 fight for Net Neutrality.

During the start of Bush’s second term, Powell left the FCC and quickly assumed membership on the Board of Directors at Cisco, an equipment manufacturer that also sells the theory of the “zettabyte era,” where a great wave of Internet usage could create Internet “brownouts.”  Cisco and other manufacturers have also closely aligned themselves with the large telecommunications companies who are among their best customers.

Powell today serves as “honorary co-chair” of the industry front group Broadband for America, perhaps America’s largest corporate astroturf telecom group supporting broadband policies favorable to the industry that pays for their operation, while purporting to represent consumer interests.

Kyle McSlarrow is the outgoing head of the cable lobby.

His assumption of leadership at the NCTA, replacing Kyle McSlarrow (who is headed to Comcast to run their DC lobbying operation) — a strong advocate of Internet Overcharging — is likely a natural fit for the cable industry agenda, with the exception of Powell’s “tarnished record” of supporting Net Neutrality.  But his anti-regulatory, pro-provider credentials go unquestioned by most in the industry.  The congratulatory well-wishes have come pouring in since the announcement earlier today:

Matt Polka, American Cable Association: “The American Cable Association congratulates former Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell on his appointment as NCTA’s new president and CEO. Everyone in the independent cable community wishes Michael the very best in his new position, and we look forward to working with him on the issues that are important to both large and small cable operators.”

Brian Roberts, Comcast: “We are thrilled that Michael Powell has accepted the position as CEO of NCTA. As a former FCC Chairman and advisor to Providence Equity, Michael brings unprecedented government and business experience to his new position. Michael is respected by the leaders of both the Senate and House, Republicans and Democrats, as well as the Administration and the business community. The cable industry is fortunate to have him as the new leader of our trade association.”

Gordon Smith, Nat’l. Assn. of Broadcasters: “NAB salutes the NCTA for its outstanding choice of former FCC chairman Michael Powell as its new president and CEO. I got to know Michael well during my tenure on the Senate Commerce Committee, and always found him to be thoughtful, engaging and a tremendous public servant. Though NAB and NCTA do not always agree on every issue, we look forward to working with Michael in the months ahead on public policy issues where we might find mutual agreement.”

The revolving door never stops turning as regulators take jobs with the industries they used to regulate.

Among consumer groups, Media Access Project and Public Knowledge tried to start off on a good note.  Andrew Schwartzman from MAP has a long history disagreeing with Powell during his time at the FCC, but still calls him a friend and looks forward to sparring with him in the future.  Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge said their group hopes he will “help the association realize the transition to a broadband economy will take many forms, as consumers wish to exercise choices of online services and service providers.”

Free Press was in no mood to ingratiate themselves with Powell.  Craig Aaron, Free Press Managing Director, issued a statement affirming this was indeed good news for the cable industry.

“If you wonder why common sense, public interest policies never see the light of day in Washington, look no further than the furiously spinning revolving door between industry and the FCC.

Former Chairman Michael Powell is the natural choice to lead the nation’s most powerful cable lobby, having looked out for the interests of companies like Comcast and Time Warner during his tenure at the Commission and having already served as a figurehead for the industry front group Broadband for America.

During his time as a public servant, Chairman Powell once dismissed the notion of a digital divide as no different from the Mercedes divide that afflicted him — after all, he said, not everyone who wants a Mercedes can have one.

Thanks in no small part to the policies he pursued at the FCC and to the cable lobby’s unyielding fight against any real competition in the broadband market, the digital divide is still with us. But today we can finally say, at least in Michael Powell’s case, that the Mercedes divide is closing.”

Bennett

We received word this afternoon proponents of community-0wned broadband in North Carolina were under attack by the ironically-named Innovation Policy Blog from the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a thinly-disguised, industry-funded think tank.

Charges and counter-charges are flying fast and furious. Well-travelled muni broadband consultant Craig Settles says the authors are in the pockets of Time-Warner Cable, and urges people around the country to lobby NC legislators to kill the bills:

The battle is now fully joined in NC. But it’s not just their fight, and it’s not a fight solely about broadband. This fight affects everyone who believes that communities deserve the freedom to choose their own best solutions to key problems involving economic development. Communities own the problems of this terrible economy.

Philip Dampier, the supporter of former New York Congressman Eric Massa who joined the broadband policy fight when Time Warner was experimenting with metered pricing, is even more shrill than Settles.

I suppose being called “shrill” is a little better than “mean and nasty,” even if perennial industry defender and comment troll Richard “I Don’t Work for a K Street Lobbyist, But I Do” Bennett doesn’t bother to spell my name correctly.

Bennett’s read of North Carolina’s H.129 is that it’s a minor little bill that does no harm.

I don’t see what our perpetual network operator-haters are so worked up about, although I can certainly see that the network equipment vendors want more outlets for their gear; more power to them. The bills actually don’t place any restrictions at all on unserved communities (where 90% or more can’t get broadband) who want to build themselves a first-class, triple-play enabled, broadband network or anything else better than dial-up. If there weren’t such an exemption, I’d be just as riled as the people I’ve quoted.

Supporting innovation from the right kind of companies.

I suspect Bennett may have trouble seeing the facts on the issue because they are obscured by the $20,000 stipend he picked up from Time Warner Cable.  That is in addition to his regular salary provided by players with a dog in the fight.

Unfortunately for those who accidentally stumble their way into the warped world of “innovation” some of our biggest telecommunications companies have in store for us, Bennett forgets to disclose who pays him.

Our argument (the one that comes without industry money-strings attached) is explored in great detail here.

For the benefit of those who don’t want to dirty themselves wading through the ITIF’s blog, here is our response in full:

Richard and I have discussed several issues impacting the broadband community over the past two years.  He always takes the side of the industry that pays him well to serve as their mouthpiece, and I represent actual consumers and do not take a penny of industry money.

The ironically named “Innovation” blog attacks the very innovation that community broadband brings to hard-pressed communities in North Carolina who want to reinvent themselves from their tobacco and cotton-past.  The reason these networks exist is because existing companies refused to provide the service needed to accomplish this task.  Richard has no idea what these communities and ordinary North Carolina consumers are going through because his article exists merely as a “drive-by” hit piece that mischaracterizes the bill, the people that oppose it, and leaves his readers thinking he doesn’t have direct ties to a company that helped write the bill.

Gone undisclosed: Bennett accepted a $20K stipend from Time Warner Cable and does work on behalf of a K Street lobbyist.  That’s “dollar a holler” reporting.

Folks, follow the money.  If a Big Telecom company is involved, Richard reflexively adopts their position, often to the detriment of consumers.  He is also factually wrong.

1) Wilson did not “buy” their fiber to the home network, they built it.
2) Davidson and Mooresville bought a bankrupt Adelphia system that needed major upgrades.  Time Warner would have done precisely the same thing the community did, only they would pay for it with rate hikes across the state (except in Wilson which has avoided rate increases from Time Warner precisely because GreenLight is running there).
3) Salisbury has had a waiting list for signups.  Not bad for a “failure.”  EPB just finished their award-winning network in Chattanooga ahead of schedule.

The public-private partnership idea has no opposition, except among providers who won’t hear of anything they don’t own, operate, and control outright.  It is telling ongoing negotiations over Ms. Avila’s Time Warner-written bill have broken down because she still objects to language that would keep those networks in business to create those kinds of success stories.

All of the pipe dreams in this piece come from the author.  I’m not an industry consultant.  I just know a much better deal when I see one.  GreenLight, EPB, and Fibrant all deliver better service than the cable company or phone company and the money paid to them remains in those communities.  They also deliver unlimited service, an issue that now becomes more important than ever with AT&T’s attempt to launch its Internet Overcharging scheme.

The key question Bennett never asks is exactly how H.129 will improve broadband in the state, whose broadband rankings are unworthy of its potential.  Answer: it won’t.  It simply delivers protection for incumbent providers who will continue to not deliver the kind of service people want and will continue to ignore rural areas they have always ignored.  When a “small government” conservative like Marilyn Avila writes micro-management requirements for these networks right down to banning them from promoting themselves and arguing over service area boundaries (conditions Time Warner is exempted from), it tells you how far certain legislators will go on behalf of large telecom companies.

As for voter approval, it already exists in the form of elections.  I haven’t seen any “throw the bums out” movement in Tennessee or North Carolina over this issue.  In fact, the only ones out of office are the last two legislators that proposed these anti-community broadband bills.  Ty Harrell resigned in disgrace and David Hoyle left office admitting, on camera, Time Warner Cable wrote the bill he introduced.

Nice try, Richard.  Maybe if Time Warner gave you $40k, you would have spent more time coming up with legitimate arguments instead of just attacking the “music men” who can name your tune after the first predictable note.

Phillip M. Dampier
Editor, Stop the Cap!

[Update 3:42pm — We just received a carbon copy of an e-mail Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable) sent out after Bennett’s piece was published (coordinated effort, anyone?).  Amusingly, she forgot to hide the carbon copy list.  Among the recipients — two lobbyists from Time Warner Cable, the state’s top cable association lobbyist, and CenturyLink.  The most hilarious part of all — her claims Bennett’s piece represented an “independent explanation” to correct the “false record” on her anti-consumer bill.  Every resident in North Carolina should be on the phones and e-mail today telling the Finance Committee to oppose H.129, and also let them know Ms. Avila’s office is sending out distorted articles written by a K Street lobbyist who accepted a $20k stipend from Time Warner Cable, the company that most strongly supports this bill.  How “independent” is that?]

Although more than 30 million Americans have experienced getting bill shocked with a cell phone bill loaded with overlimit fees and penalties, a wireless industry group says 19 out of 20 of these customers are economically better off getting those high bills, and any plan to notify customers in advance when their usage limits are reached would “harm innovation, limit consumer choice, and impair the potential for competitive differentiation.”

These incredible conclusions come in a filing from the Wireless Communications Association International, an industry group funded by AT&T, Sprint, Clearwire, and Time Warner Cable.

The WCAI just released a new white paper claiming Americans facing Internet Overcharging from usage-capped wireless data plans are actually saving money when carriers impose overlimit fees.  Their reasoning for this new math?  You might overpay for a usage plan that delivers a higher usage allowance than you need.

"And to think they actually believed us when we said Internet Overcharging saved people money!"

The wireless industry is heavily lobbying the Federal Communications Commission to stop the agency from imposing new rules to deal with the bill shock problem.  The FCC favors an advance warning system, which would force providers to notify customers by e-mail or text message when they near their usage allowance.  Letting customers know when they are about to pay enormous penalty usage rates before they are reflected on a future bill could save Americans millions annually.

The WCAI-funded study says consumers don’t need the agency’s help, going as far as to claim the majority of Americans are already well aware they are exceeding their plan limits, and are better off paying short-term penalties.

“The FCC is weighing new regulations that it says will eliminate so-called ‘bill shock,’ but this analysis makes plain that consumers don’t need regulators’ help,” WCAI President Fred Campbell said. “If you give them the right information, they know how to pick the best deal.”

But critics charge providers fighting this provision want to hide the most basic information of all — when consumers are on the verge of running up huge bills.

“The FCC’s effort on bill shock is long overdue in a wireless environment where today’s heavy user is tomorrow’s average user, and where the wireless Web is more and more important to commerce and to society,” Free Press Policy Counsel M. Chris Riley said. “It is vital that consumers are empowered with the information and the tools needed to make decisions about their own wireless usage so they can avoid outrageous charges.”

The WCAI white paper suggests that if providers are forced to issue advance warnings, companies may have to raise rates to compensate.  The paper’s author suggests consumers would find that worse than just paying the bills with overlimit fees:

The Nielsen Study indicates that many consumers incurring overages do so willfully and repeatedly. Their behavior suggests it is unlikely that usage notifications or usage controls would change their behavior because they are either indifferent to the overage charges or have determined that the occasional overage charge is more economical for them than choosing a more expensive plan. Notwithstanding that these overage-incurring consumers may not want or need additional notifications or controls, the adoption of the FCC‘s regulatory proposals would impose on all consumers the financial burden of ―protecting this one small group.

The WCAI dismisses the huge number of complaints that arrive at the FCC each year over this issue as simply “opinions” from consumers, not nearly as credible as their own analysis of actual customer bills.

The paper even argues with the definition of ” bill shock,” suggesting that the nearly 7 percent of wireless customers who blow past their voice allowances only face an average penalty of around $18.  That is “surprising or inconvenient; but it is unlikely to be shocking.”

Bill Shock

The WCAI study admits the dollar amounts for data-usage bill shock can be considerably higher, sometimes $100 or more.  The charges occur more frequently, too — impacting nearly 18 percent of customers.  But the group dismisses it as a rare occurrence anyway and that carriers will issue credits for astronomical surprise bills.  Besides, the paper concludes, when it was written most consumers were enrolled in increasingly-rare “unlimited use” plans.  Since the raw data was collected largely before AT&T abandoned its flat rate data pricing in 2010, statistics regarding bill shock for AT&T’s new limited use plans were not available.  The white paper inaccurately dismisses that major rate change, claiming it “had no impact on the data analyzed.”  That leaves readers believing the rate changes made no difference.

But the group’s logic completely derails when it concludes there are “consumer benefits to overages.”  Namely, providers “simplified” rate plans to reduce choice which was causing “customer confusion.”  The paper concludes “there is substantial evidence that consumers make deliberate choices to incur overages rather than upgrading to a more expensive monthly rate plan, and that they overwhelmingly benefit from such choices.”

The white paper ignores several important factors:

1. The diminishing number of unlimited access plans which give consumers a way to avoid overlimit fees, especially for data;
2. Carriers themselves arbitrarily set the arbitrary rules for the playing field – calling plan allowances, data allowances, limits, overlimit fees and penalties, and roaming rates;
3. The study ignores the record number of consumers complaining about surprising bills and the true economic impact providing simple text message or e-mailed notifications would have, and doesn’t give any reason why a consumer can’t simply shut off services once limits are reached, to prevent excess charges.

The white paper notes that 736,000 Americans annually are getting surprisingly high bills.  Assuming they are an average of $20 higher than anticipated, that represents nearly $15 million dollars in extra revenue for carriers — ample reason to hire dollar-a-holler groups to produce nonsensical reports that conclude a system to notify consumers they are about to be one of those 736,000 customers is actually bad for them and their wallets.

The FCC’s Consumer Task Force recommends these strategies to avoid bill shock:

•    Understand your calling pattern for making voice calls, and ask your carrier for a plan that would be best for your kind of use.
•    If you are an infrequent phone user, consider a pre-paid plan. Because you “pre-pay” for all your minutes, these plans make it impossible to go over your set limit.
•    Understand what your roaming charges are and where you will incur them.
•    Understand your options for data and text plans.
•    If you are going to use your mobile phone outside the U.S. for voice, email, and other services, make certain to find out beforehand what charges may apply. (Visit Wireless World Travel for more information about using a wireless phone in other countries.)
•    Ask how your carrier can help you avoid bill shock – with phone or text alerts, by letting you monitor your account online, or by giving you other information.
•    If you have tried to resolve a billing issue with your carrier and can not reach an acceptable resolution, complain to the FCC. You can call our Consumer Center, toll-free, at 1-888-CALL FCC (1-888-225-5322), or file a complaint here.

To learn more, read the FCC’s White Paper on Bill Shock.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/FCC Bill Shock.flv[/flv]

The Federal Communications Commission discusses the problem of “bill shock.”  (1 minute)