The Cowardly Lion is back.

Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski believes he has a sound legal basis to implement Net Neutrality policies to protect Internet traffic from provider interference, but has stopped considerably short of implementing his own proposed enforcement mechanisms.

Genachowski outlined his ideas to implement Net Neutrality reform in brief remarks before the Commission this morning.

“Broadband providers have natural business incentives to leverage their position as gatekeepers to the Internet,” the text of the speech says. “The record in the proceeding we’ve run over the past year, as well as history, shows that there are real risks to the Internet’s continued freedom and openness.”

Genachowski praised the progress the Internet has managed to achieve over the past decade, and said his efforts would ensure that progress could continue with a minimum of regulation.  In that spirit, Genachowski announced he would not move that the Commission re-assert its legal authority to oversee broadband by a process to reclassify the service under Title II, which governs telecommunications services.

Comcast successfully sued for repeal of the Commission’s original authority, implemented by Bush FCC chairman Michael Powell, which classified broadband as “an information service.”  A DC Circuit Court discarded the legal basis for Powell’s regulatory authority in a sweeping victory for the cable giant, which was sued for throttling down speeds for broadband customers using peer to peer applications.

Genachowski argued he has “a sound legal basis” to pursue his latest vision of Net Neutrality rules in spite of the earlier court case.  But critics doubt that and charge that the FCC chairman has capitulated to America’s largest broadband providers, including Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.

Genachowski's view of the Internet does not meet the realities consumers face without Net Neutrality protection assuring a free and open Internet.

“By not restoring the FCC’s authority, Chairman Genachowski is unnecessarily placing his Net Neutrality agenda, and indeed his entire broadband agenda, at risk,” said Free Press executive director Josh Silver.

Boiled down, Genachowski now seeks just two major principles governing provider behavior:

1. No censorship of content.
2. Full disclosure of network management techniques so consumers know what providers are doing to their broadband connections.

Consumer groups are furious that the chairman has apparently discarded many of Net Neutrality’s most important consumer protections, and accused him of caving in to lobbyist demands and abdicating his responsibility to oversee critical broadband infrastructure.

Marvin Ammori, a cyber-activist and public interest law professor said the proposal also fell well short of meeting President Barack Obama’s repeated promises to enact strong Net Neutrality policies.

“It’s make-believe Net Neutrality,” said Ammori, who called Genachowski’s proposals “garbage” and “meaningless gestures.”

Now off the table:

A ban on Internet Overcharging schemes that allow providers to limit, throttle, or overcharge consumers who use more than an arbitrary amount of Internet usage per month. This exposes home broadband users to the same kinds of bill shock that wireless customers already experience.

A ban on using “network management” to artificially slow or block traffic the provider — at its sole discretion — determines is “harmful” or “congests” their network. Under Genachowski’s new proposal, the definition of “harmful” could be made by an engineering department on technical grounds or in an executive suite as companies ponder their financial returns. So long as they manage traffic without “unreasonable discrimination,” it’s okay with the Commission.

Built-in loopholes guarantee providers need only set rates high enough to assure only “preferred partners” can afford the asking price, and that only their competitors meet the definition of “harmful” traffic worthy of speed throttling.  The proposal also reportedly only covers video and voice traffic on wireless networks.  It’s open season on everything else if you access the web from a smartphone or wireless broadband service.

Actual legal authority to implement any broadband reform policies. It was Julius Genachowski and the FCC’s General Counsel Austin C. Schlick that argued without asserting legal authority under Title II, nothing the Commission did could be assured of withstanding a court challenge.  Yet today the chairman now claims his legal team has found some legal precedents that somehow will keep his policies in force after inevitable lawsuits are filed.  Former FCC chairman Powell thought much the same thing about his own idea of reclassifying broadband as “an information service.”  The DC Court of Appeals thought otherwise, something Schlick knows personally, having fought the Comcast case before that court.  In the end, Schlick correctly guessed his case was a train wreck, and was reduced to asking the court for legal pointers about how to draft regulations that could survive a court challenge.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/The Third Way The Future of Internet Policy in America 5-2010.flv[/flv]

This “other” Julius Genachowski from May of this year delivered remarks that carried a very different tone about the importance of restoring legal authority to oversee broadband.  But that was before AT&T put him on their speed dial, successfully reaching him personally more than a half dozen times in the last few weeks to argue their point of view.  Consumers don’t have Julius Genachowski’s phone number.  (4 minutes)

In short, Genachowski’s proposals represent near-total victory for providers, and any cable or phone company annoyed with the few scraps still on the agenda need only file suit arguing the Commission lacks the authority to stick its nose into their business affairs.  Without Title II authority in place, that lawsuit is probably going to result in a favorable ruling putting us back where we are today — with no Net Neutrality protections.  But by then, the Internet will be a very different place, loaded with toll booths from content providers and your ISP, who may ask for extra money if you want to watch Netflix or download files.  Your speeds may be reduced at any time, to any level, if a provider deems you’ve over-consumed your traffic allowance for that day, week, or month.

Worse, some providers will dispatch bills with overlimit fees that could run into the hundreds of dollars (or more) for those with a family member who left a high bandwidth application running while running out the door to catch the school bus.

Providers and their well-paid lobbyists celebrate their victory over consumers' wallets

So long as providers agree to abuse everyone more or less equally (excepting their own “preferred partners” of course), Julius Genachowski believes the next ten years of America’s online experience can be as great as the last.

In his dreams.  As Public Justice attorney Paul Bland said about dealing with ruthless companies like AT&T, assuming providers will behave favorably towards consumers puts you on the candy bridge into Rainbow Land.

Even with Genachowski’s proposed reforms, diluted to be point of being homeopathic, Republicans were moving in for the kill this morning.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said she would work to topple any FCC-led Net Neutrality order.

“This is a hysterical reaction by the FCC to a hypothetical problem,” she said, adding that Genachowski “has little if any congressional support” for the action.

To overturn any order, Blackburn vowed to reintroduce her bill to prevent the FCC’s policy making process.

Robert McDowell, one of two Republican FCC commissioners, called the move to enact reforms a defiance against Congressional will.

“Minutes before midnight last night, Chairman Genachowski announced his intent to adopt sweeping regulations of Internet network management at the FCC’s open meeting on December 21. I strongly oppose this ill-advised maneuver. Such rules would upend three decades of bipartisan and international consensus that the Internet is best able to thrive in the absence of regulation,” McDowell said in a prepared statement.

All this is taking place at the same time Comcast has foreshadowed America’s future broadband experience: charging backbone provider Level 3 extra for sending Comcast customers online movies and TV shows, censored a blog run by one of its customers trying to get around Comcast’s unresponsive customer service agents, stifled innovation by independent cable modem manufacturer Zoom Modems, has achieved a fever pitch in lobbying Washington to hurry up and approve its colossal merger deal with NBC-Universal, and has a lobbying team convinced it can achieve victory on all fronts from a favorable incoming Congress.

If they and other broadband providers succeed, it’s time to get out your wallet and count your money before handing it over.  A consumer revolt is all that stands between your Internet experience today and an endless series of pay-walls and stifled speeds tomorrow.

Comcast wants to be paid twice for carrying Netflix online video content to its customers: once from customers themselves and a second time from Level 3 Communications, Inc., the company providing much of Netflix’s streamed video traffic.

“On Nov. 19 Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content,” said Level 3’s chief legal officer, Thomas Stortz, in a statement. “By taking this action, Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content which competes with its own cable TV and Xfinity delivered content.”

The backbone and content distribution company accused Comcast of threatening the open Internet and of abusing its market position as America’s largest cable broadband provider.  Comcast disageed, calling Level 3’s position “duplicitous” and accused the company of sending far more traffic from its content partners than the cable giant sends in the other direction.

Joe Waz, senior vice president of External Affairs and Public Policy Counsel at Comcast posted a response on the company’s blog claiming Level 3 was trying to have it both ways, running a lucrative content delivery business for clients like Netflix while also acting as a major Internet backbone provider.  Waz claims Level 3 is purposely confusing the fair exchange of backbone traffic with the commercial content delivery business it also runs:

Comcast has long established and mutually acceptable commercial arrangements with Level 3′s Content Delivery Network (CDN) competitors in delivering the same types of traffic to our customers. Comcast offered Level 3 the same terms it offers to Level 3′s CDN competitors for the same traffic. But Level 3 is trying to gain an unfair business advantage over its CDN competitors by claiming it’s entitled to be treated differently and trying to force Comcast to give Level 3 unlimited and highly imbalanced traffic and shift all the cost onto Comcast and its customers.

To quantify this, what Level 3 wants is to pressure Comcast into accepting more than a twofold increase in the amount of traffic Level 3 delivers onto Comcast’s network — for free. In other words, Level 3 wants to compete with other CDNs, but pass all the costs of that business onto Comcast and Comcast’s customers, instead of Level 3 and its customers.

Level 3′s position is simply duplicitous. When another network provider tried to pass traffic onto Level 3 this way, Level 3 said this is not the way settlement-free peering works in the Internet world. When traffic is way out of balance, Level 3 said, it will insist on a commercially negotiated solution.

But Level 3 claims Comcast threatened to pull the plug if they didn’t agree to the cable company’s demands, which would have cut off Comcast customers from a wide range on content.  The company agreed to pay Comcast under protest, and took the issue public just as attention has become re-focused on Net Neutrality at the Federal Communications Commission.

The dispute increasingly resembles cable TV carriage fights where programmers threaten to yank programming if their terms are not met.  Had Comcast delivered on its alleged threat to cut ties to Level 3, widespread disruptions of content delivery could have been the result, starting with a blockade against Netflix streaming video.  That would leave Comcast broadband customers paying for a hobbled Internet experience, missing popular websites because of Comcast’s roadblocks wherever Level 3 traffic was involved.

It’s a classic case of a Net Neutrality violation, with money being the motivating factor.  Pro-consumer public policy groups immediately pounced on the news.

“Comcast’s request of payment in exchange for content transmission is yet another example of why citizens need strong, effective network neutrality rules that include a ban on such ‘paid prioritization’ practices,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president and policy director of Media Access Project. “It is also yet another clear demonstration of why Comcast should not be permitted to acquire NBC Universal, given its clear tendency to exercise control in the video marketplace.”

“On its face, this is the sort of toll booth between residential subscribers and the content of their choice that a Net Neutrality rule is supposed to prohibit,” said Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge. “In addition, this is exactly the sort of anticompetitive harm that opponents of Comcast’s merger with NBC-Universal have warned would happen — that Comcast would leverage its network to harm distribution of competitive video services, while raising prices on its own customers.”

Although Netflix and officials at the Federal Communications Commission both refused comment, analysts predict consumers will ultimately pay the price for Comcast’s newest fees in the form of higher prices for online content.  Comcast does not impose these fees on its own TV Everywhere online video service, Xfinity Fancast.  Waiving expensive content delivery fees for “preferred content partners” could leave independent competitors like Netflix vulnerable to the whims of the broadband providers charging extra to deliver traffic to paying customers.

The FCC is rumored to be considering enacting some broadband reforms before new Republican members of Congress take their seats in January.

(Thanks to several of our readers, including Terry and ‘PreventCaps’ for sending word.)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Comcast Internet Toll Booth 11-30-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News briefly covered the dispute in this morning’s Business Briefs segment.  (1 minute)

AT&T Mobility thinks it has a winning strategy when it took away unlimited data plans, forcing new customers to choose high-priced, usage-limited alternatives.  But a new survey from Wall Street research firm Sanford Bernstein found AT&T customers will grab, claw, and scream to keep the peace of mind that comes from having the choice of an unlimited use plan.

Sanford Bernstein’s study found a large number of customers willing to abandon any carrier that takes unlimited data away from them.  About a third of the more than 800 people responding said AT&T’s move toward usage-based billing left them with a bad impression of the wireless carrier.  That’s particularly bad for AT&T, which already scores as America’s lowest-rated wireless company according to Consumer Reports.

AT&T mitigated some of the potential damage by letting existing customers keep their unlimited data plans when they ceased selling the unlimited option this past June.  New customers are forced to choose between two limited-use plans — $15 for 200MB or $25 for 2GB of usage (a tethering option is also available.)  Existing customers will only face that hard choice if or when they change phones, presumably in the next year or two.

Had they not grandfathered in existing customers, Sanford Bernstein’s research suggests a large proportion of customers forced to give up unlimited data would quit AT&T even if it meant buying a new phone and paying a higher bill just to get the unlimited data option back.  When AT&T eventually forces these customers’ hands, Sanford Bernstein predicts trouble.

According to the study, more than 58 percent of the lowest data users said they would dump AT&T overboard and switch to another provider with an unlimited plan. For heavier users, more than two-thirds are prepared to take their business elsewhere.

But even with overwhelming evidence like that, AT&T and some Wall Street analysts think Internet Overcharging schemes do customers a favor.

AT&T's mandatory data plans

“Customers generally have strongly negative perceptions about Usage-Based Pricing, and these are often not correlated with self-interest,” Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett said in a research note analyzing the findings of the survey conducted this past summer. “It is fashionable to argue that loyalty to carriers is dead (except perhaps to Verizon Wireless, whose service level is perceived to be markedly higher than that of its competitors). The new conventional wisdom is that carrier loyalty has been replaced with loyalty to the device. But high inclination to switch carriers and phones to maintain an unlimited plan suggest that perhaps the plan itself is more important than either one.”

The Wall Street firm’s research is hardly news to consumers, who have repeatedly expressed loathing contempt for Internet Overcharging schemes like so-called “usage-based billing,” “data caps,” and speed throttles that kick in when carriers decide customers have used the service enough.

Consumers are willing to pay a higher price just knowing they will never face dreaded “bill shock” — a wireless company bill filled with hefty overlimit fees charged for excessive data usage.  They also have no interest in being penalized by arbitrary usage limits that punish offenders with speed throttles that reduce wireless speeds to dial-up or lower.

AT&T was the first major carrier to throw down the gauntlet and force customers into choosing between a “budget plan” that is easy to exceed at just 200MB of usage per month or an inadequate, overpriced 2GB tier that costs just five dollars less than the now-abandoned unlimited use plan.

Wall Street firms like Sanford Bernstein worry their investor clients may be exposed to a revenue massacre when competing carriers like Verizon Wireless, which retains an unlimited plan for now, unveils its own version of the popular Apple iPhone.  The result could be a massive stampede of departing customers headed for top-rated Verizon Wireless, even if it means paying early termination fees.

AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel sees things very differently however, telling CNET News AT&T’s new limited option plans deliver more choice and flexibility for data-hungry users.

Studies find few surprises for cable and phone companies that pay for them.

Internet plans with term contracts, usage limits, and other pricing tricks are good for consumers and save them money over comparable unlimited usage plans.

That is the conclusion of a new study from the Technology Policy Institute, an industry front group funded by AT&T, Comcast, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Qwest, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

Scott Wallsten and James Riso’s “study,”Residential and Business Broadband Prices, Part 1: An Empirical Analysis of Metering and Other Price Determinants,” claims to have taken a comprehensive look at 25,000 plans offered across North America, Europe and the Pacific to make their case that a residential service plan with a 10GB monthly usage cap would save consumers 27 percent over the price of a comparable unlimited plan, as long as data use stays below the cap.  They also suggest additional savings can be had if consumers lock themselves into term contracts with service providers (most of which carry hefty fees to exit early.)

These results suggest that the unlimited data plans typically offered by most U.S. wireline broadband providers may not be optimal for many consumers. The details of capped plans matter, and how an individual user is affected depends on the base price, allowed data usage, and consequences for exceeding the cap. Nevertheless, because capped plans are—all else equal—cheaper than unlimited plans, many consumers, particularly the low-volume users, are likely to pay less for broadband with data caps than they would for plans offering unlimited data transfer.

Wallsten and Riso make much of AT&T’s recent decision to end unlimited usage for wireless broadband, suggesting that consumers are saving money with new, low-use plans over the company’s old unlimited pricing.  The authors claim close to 70 percent of iPhone users consume less than 200 MB per month, which is the cap for AT&T’s cheaper data plan.

But the authors concede that usage is growing — rapidly in the case of online video, which sets the stage for consumers saving money today, but facing serious overlimit charges on their bills tomorrow:

Some analysts, however, remain concerned that these plans make video streaming impractical given the bandwidth it consumes, could eventually cost consumers more as they use their wireless devices more intensively, and generally make it less likely for wireless to become a viable substitute for wireline broadband. To be sure, while Figure 3 shows that the vast majority of users consume small amounts of data today, it also shows per user mobile data consumption growing quickly, so the number of people who exceed the caps could increase significantly in a relatively short period of time.

Major U.S. wireline providers have not yet introduced metered pricing successfully, though, as shown above, it is common in other countries. An experimental metered pricing plan by Time Warner Cable garnered strong reaction, prompting one group to demand that Congress ―investigate ongoing metered pricing practices to determine the impact on consumers. Some in Congress did, in fact, hold hearings on the plans. In response to this backlash, Time Warner Cable canceled its experiment.

Despite the political reaction, all consumers are not inherently worse off or better off with metered pricing. Low-volume users are likely to be better off under metered plans and high volume users worse off. The net effect on any given consumer depends on his data use, the base price, how much data the base price allows, the price of data when exceeding the cap, and how much he would have paid for an unlimited plan.

Wallsten and Riso also admit several parts of their study are “incomplete,” and “lack data.” We would also include the facts they ignored whether consumers prefer unlimited plans, how customers would feel about a bill with overlimit fees attached, or whether the usage cap levels the authors note in their study are adequate.  They also completely ignore the critical issue of bandwidth cost trends and their relationship to consumer pricing.

But of course they would, considering the same providers who want these pricing schemes are paying the costs for the study.

Welcome to the world of Hired Gun Research.

Wallsten, in particular, has been singing the same cap-happy tune for several years now, churning out the same industry-financed conclusions about broadband.  Back in 2007, he delivered a piece trumpeted by the Progress & Freedom Foundation and the Heartland Institute — two groups notorious for parroting corporate-friendly talking points.  Back then it was about Internet overloads and supporting Internet toll booths for “congestion pricing” after Comcast got caught secretly throttling broadband customer speeds.

Dave Burstein of DSL Prime notes most consumers don’t like caps, lock-in contracts, or speed throttles.

“Policymakers should normally assume that imposing caps generally results in negative consumer welfare. The small efficiency gains don’t come close to making up for a second rate Internet,” Burstein writes. “Everyone is better off with a robust, unthrottled Internet. It allows for an important form of video competition and market access for innovative new net offerings. It’s a better experience for the user and hence more people will be connected, a good thing.”

In this latest study, the two authors completely ignore some very important facts:

• Who sets the pricing for unlimited and usage-capped broadband?  Providers.  Do consumers save money from usage limited plans because of decreased provider costs passed along to consumers or pricing schemes that artificially inflate unlimited broadband pricing to drive customers to “money-saving” limited plans that teach usage restraint or expose consumers to dramatic overlimit fees?

• What are the trends for wholesale bandwidth costs and how does that trend comport with industry pricing schemes that have increased broadband pricing in the United States?  An honest study would reflect these costs are dropping… dramatically, and would introduce the very real question of whether unlimited broadband is a problem in search of a revenue-generating solution that would come from further monetizing broadband with so-called “consumption pricing.”

• What is the consumer perception of usage-limited broadband?  An important part of this equation is whether consumers want unlimited broadband service to be discontinued.  Every study to date not paid for by the providers themselves shows consumers are willing to pay today’s prices for the peace of mind they receive in not being exposed to limits or overlimit fees.  Wallsten and Riso touched on the consumer backlash, to a considerable part coordinated by Stop the Cap!, over Time Warner’s pricing scheme which would have tripled broadband pricing for an equivalent level of service.  But the authors charge on with their pro-cap conclusions regardless.

• Wallsten and Riso’s study only casually mentions the dramatically different paradigms of wireless and wireline broadband.  The former is delivered using technology that is recognized to have limitations that can only be seriously addressed with additional spectrum allocation that could take years to address.  The latter is already being mitigated by cable broadband technology upgrades, fiber optics, and improved backbone connections that often deliver much better access at a fraction of the price providers paid just a few years earlier.  Drawing comparisons between AT&T’s wireless broadband pricing and wireline broadband is dubious at best, especially since two companies largely control pricing and service for the majority of wireless customers in the United States.

• To prove its contention limited broadband service is “common in other countries,” the authors cite a Frequently Asked Questions article by Comcast trying to justify that company’s own usage cap to its customers.  So because Comcast’s PR department says it, it must be true.  In fact, in countries where usage capped broadband has been a traditional problem, consumer demand and public policy efforts have moved providers towards offering unlimited service plans to meet popular demand.  In fact, in countries like Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, governments have cited usage caps as a serious disadvantage to growth of the digital economy.  Consumers certainly agree.

Burstein adds:

Caps or other throttling measures are almost never imposed because of actual congestion problems (on large, wired networks.)  The caps would be at far higher levels if they were, like Comcast’s 250 gigabytes. The usual explanation is bogus. The typical consumer advocate believes the caps are about preventing competition to the carriers’ own video package. That’s certainly common, but so is price discrimination to yield increased potential revenues. As Scott notes, price discrimination in a strongly competitive market can work out well for all concerned. With strong competition, the benefits flow through to consumers. Since competition in broadband is typically weak, I believe it far more often has little consumer benefit but is good for company profits.

The authors conclude that despite limitations on data available, “The policy implications, however, are clear.  Policymakers should not immediately conclude that data caps and other pricing schemes that differ from traditional unlimited plans are necessarily bad.”  Instead, the authors suggest pricing trends should be evaluated over time to identify the effects on prices, investment and usage.

Although that’s a point Burstein agrees with, we feel there is substantial evidence this debate is based not on experimental pricing to find new customers, but rather a defensive position to respond to an inevitable public backlash against Internet Overcharging schemes.  Providers are desperately looking for excuses to further monetize broadband, cut costs, and deliver an effective impediment to online video competitors using broadband networks to deliver alternative, less expensive services to consumers.

Policymakers should listen to their constituents, who are more than comfortable with today’s unlimited broadband experience.  Nobody objects to experimental low usage plans with discount pricing, but not at the expense of ending or repricing existing unlimited service into the stratosphere.  Today’s broadband industry earns billions in annual profits, even as their costs decline.  Providers have done considerable profit-taking in the last few years from their broadband divisions, slashing upgrades and other investments to keep pace with traffic demands.

Ontario residents enjoy less than half a serving of broadband their neighbors in Quebec enjoy from Bell, for less money

Residents of Quebec enjoy more than double the broadband usage allowance Bell provides its Ontario customers, showing once again h0w arbitrary Internet Overcharging schemes are for consumers in North America.

Broadband Reports reader Ironsight200 ponders why customers in Quebec enjoy substantially less abuse from the skimpy usage allowances Bell imposes on its customers.

The prices charged differ as well, with Quebec residents also getting an out-the-door lower monthly price because Bell does not impose charges on the modem Ontario customers rent for $3.95/month — $6.95 a month with the Fibe 25 service.

Let’s take a look (and don’t worry Ontario readers, Bell promises you can still look at least 624,999 additional web pages this month without incurring overlimit fees):

Quebec users get more than double the usage allowance of...

...their neighbors in Ontario.

Pricing for Bell broadband service at the bundled price:

*- includes $3.95 modem rental fee. ^- includes $6.95 modem rental fee.