The FCC today voted unanimously to begin writing a formal Net Neutrality policy to govern broadband services across the United States.  Three Democratic commissioners voted yes and applauded the concept of Net Neutrality.  The two Republican commissioners also voted to move the process forward, but signaled they would likely oppose the final draft of the rules.

Support for Net Neutrality, which would prohibit providers from slowing down, blocking, or charging higher pricing for favored access to web content, was spearheaded by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

Genachowski said the rules were needed to protect consumers from abusive behavior by telecommunications companies that might seek to block or restrict access to broadband content, including telephone and video services.

“Internet users should always have the final say about their online service, whether it’s the software, applications or services they choose, or the networks and hardware they use to the connect to the Internet,” Genachowski said.

Other Democratic commissioners agreed with Genachowski.  Commissioner Michael Copps stated it was important to hear from everyone about the proposed rules.

“We need to recognize that the gatekeepers of today may not be the gatekeepers of tomorrow,” Copps said.

John McCain

Many Republicans were unconvinced of the need to establish Net Neutrality as formal policy.

“I do not share the majority’s view that the Internet is showing breaks and cracks, nor do I believe that the government is the best tool to fix it,” Republican commissioner Robert McDowell said.

“These new rules should rightly be viewed by consumers suspiciously as another government power grab over a private service provided by private companies in a competitive marketplace,” Sen. John McCain wrote in an opinion piece published by The Washington Times.

McCain compared Net Neutrality with the federal bailout of Wall Street and the American auto industry.

Under the draft proposed rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service:

1. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet;
2. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice;
3. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;
4. would not be allowed to deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers;
5. would be required to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner; and
6. would be required to disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking.

The draft rules make clear that providers would also be permitted to address harmful traffic and traffic unwanted by users, such as spam, and prevent both the transfer of unlawful content, such as child pornography, and the unlawful transfer of content, such as a transfer that would infringe copyright.

Today’s vote marks only a beginning of the process to begin writing the formal policy of Net Neutrality governing Internet use in the United States.  As with the ponderous debate on health care reform, what ends up defining “Net Neutrality” will be open to interpretation, and a barrage of lobbyists and arm twisting from politicians will be part of what comes next.

On the eve of the historic vote, Verizon Communications seemed to join Google in affirming some of the basic principles of Net Neutrality.

However, the devil is in the details, as is always the case in telecommunications policy.

Verizon supports its own interpretation of Net Neutrality, which is wrapped in a concept they call “innovation without permission,” which is code language for a deregulatory open free-market environment.  It broadly accepts the concept that telecommunications companies should not interfere with legal content, but the company doesn’t want a whole barrage of new regulations to specifically define what would constitute “interference.”  Verizon believes onerous rules would stifle investment, and that existing rules already in place at the FCC are sufficient protection.

Things get downright dicey when Verizon spells out its “network management” principles, warning the FCC overly specific rules in this area could have unintended consequences.

Broadband network providers should have the flexibility to manage their networks to deal with issues like traffic congestion, spam, “malware” and denial of service attacks, as well as other threats that may emerge in the future–so long as they do it reasonably, consistent with their customers’ preferences, and don’t unreasonably discriminate in ways that either harm users or are anti-competitive. They should also be free to offer managed network services, such as IP television.

It is in this area where very specific rules are appropriate to write, because what one company defines as appropriate “network management,” could be discriminatory against selected content those providers seek to “manage.”

No broadband user has ever objected to network management that controls spam, “malware,” denial of service attacks, and other like-minded traffic.  In fact, most consumers wish more could be done to control these things.  Nothing in the current framework of telecommunications regulations or in those proposed have ever sought to impede this type of management.

No consumer minds having access to additional content, such as IP television.  But consumers do object when such content is used as an excuse to ram through Internet Overcharging schemes limiting broadband usage or imposing higher fees for using the types of services companies like Verizon now advocate.  “The broadband sky is falling” rhetoric about “exafloods,” overloaded “Internet brownouts,” and other such scaremongering nonsense often comes from the same providers that now want to provide IP television.  What they provide with their left hand, they want to limit with their right.

It’s anti-competitive, because the same companies with an interest in selling these pay television services (FiOS, cable television, fiber-telephone U-verse, etc.) also provide the broadband service that companies like Netflix and Hulu use to indirectly challenge their video business models.

Another concern is “traffic congestion” management, which all too often has meant speed throttles selectively imposed on “offending” applications, particularly peer to peer traffic.  There is good traffic management, such as routing equipment that provides even delivery of services like streaming video and Voice Over IP telephone calls, which rapidly deteriorate on loaded down networks, and then there is bad traffic management which selectively slows down the speed of whatever the provider deems to be of “lower priority.”  Allowing the customer to make the decision about which traffic gets priority is one thing.  Allowing a provider to do it without the consent of the customer is quite another.

Too often, the “unintended consequences” Verizon and Google speak about in the joint statement go to the provider’s favor, not to the consumer.  Overly broad, non-specific language opens loopholes through which providers will eagerly leap through.

Verizon also advocates transparency — “All providers of broadband access, services and applications should provide their customers with clear information about their offerings.”

Disclosure alone doesn’t suffice for consumers, particularly if there are few competitive places to take your business if you disagree with company policies.  Those rules should include realistic speed information (marketing stating “up to 10Mbps” that in reality only delivers 3Mbps would be one example).  It should not simply be an escape clause for providers to abuse their customers with throttled, slow service, and give them the excuse that “we disclosed it.”

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Federal Communications Commission Open Meeting

October 22, 2009

112 minutes

(Warning: Loud audio)

Phillip Dampier

The Wall Street Journal today published an article reviewing the landscape of flat rate broadband service and how some Internet providers want to change it.

The article quotes me on the issue of Internet Overcharging becoming a political football in the Net Neutrality debate.

“This could come down to carriers saying, ‘If you don’t allow us to manage our networks the way we see fit, then we will just have to cap everything,’ ” says Phillip Dampier, a consumer advocate focusing on technology issues in Rochester, N.Y. “They’ll make it an either/or thing: give them more control over their network or expect metered broadband.”

Mr. Dampier was among those who forced Time Warner Cable to shelve a metered Internet pilot program in several cities last year. The company, which had argued the plan would be a fairer way to charge for access, acknowledged it was a “debacle.” It won’t say if it plans to revive the trials.

Unfortunately, the article never bothers to mention Stop the Cap!, the website dedicated to fighting these overcharging schemes.

AT&T weighs in on their experiment to overcharge consumers in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada, and analysts think Net Neutrality arguments may give providers an excuse to expand those experiments, launch price increases and blame it on Net Neutrality policies:

“Some type of usage-based model, for those customers who have abnormally high usage patterns, seems inevitable,” an AT&T spokesman says. AT&T declined to provide more details on its trials.

“Unquestionably, the carriers erred in their initial selling of broadband with a flat rate,” says Elroy Jopling, research director of Gartner Inc. “They assumed no one would use it as much as they do now, but then along came high-definition movies. They’re now trying to get around that mistake.”

Network neutrality deals primarily with ensuring that Internet providers don’t favor any online traffic over any other. Still, Mr. Jopling and other analysts argue, the net neutrality debate might provide the carriers with an opening to argue for changing that pricing.

“With network neutrality enforced, the only other option for carriers is to charge by the byte or to raise the flat-rate pricing,” says Johna Till Johnson, president of Nemertes Research. “Right now they’re just deciding which one to do. Just be prepared to pay more.”

It's "Rep. Eric Massa," Not 'Joe Messa'

The article has several flaws.

• It mis-identifies Rep. Eric Massa (D-New York) as “Rep. Joe Messa.”  Rep. Massa introduced legislation to ban Internet Overcharging when companies cannot produce actual evidence to justify it, particularly in the limited competitive marketplace for broadband in the United States.
• The article fails to mention the usage limits proposed by smaller broadband providers, including Frontier’s infamous 5GB usage definition in their Acceptable Use Policy.  This is a very important fact to consider when the article quotes Professor Andrew Odlyzko, an independent authority on broadband usage, as stating the average broadband consumer uses triple that amount (15 gigabytes per month).
• The quotation about the number of e-mails or web page views available under plan allowances that routinely appear in such articles ignores the increasing use of higher bandwidth applications like online video.  Telling a consumer they can send 75 million e-mails is irrelevant information because no consumer would ever need to worry about usage limits if they only used their account for web page browsing and e-mail usage.  They very much do have to be concerned if they use their service to watch online video from Hulu or Netflix, or use one of the online backup services.
• The article makes no mention of publicly available financial reports from broadband providers like Time Warner Cable that prove that at the same time their profits on broadband service are increasing, the company’s costs to provide the service continue to decline, along with the dollar amounts they spend to maintain and expand that network to meet demand.  Providing readers with insight into the true financial picture of a broadband provider, instead of simply quoting the public relations line of the day would seem particularly appropriate for The Wall Street Journal.
• The article doesn’t make mention that the same providers arguing increased Internet traffic is creating a problem for them are also working to launch an online video distribution platform that will rival Hulu in size and scope.  TV Everywhere will consume an enormous amount of the broadband network they claim can’t handle today’s traffic without Internet Overcharging schemes being thrown on customers.  Of course, such usage limits are very convenient for companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T, which are now in the business of selling pay television programming to consumers.  Should a consumer choose to watch all of their television online instead of paying for a cable package, a usage allowance will help put a stop to that very quickly, as will planned restrictions that only provide online video to “authenticated” existing pay television subscribers.

One thing remains certain – providers are still itching to overcharge you for your broadband service.  Consumers and the public interest groups that want to represent them must stand unified in opposition to Internet Overcharging schemes and for Net Neutrality protection, and never accept sacrificing one for the other.

Glenn Britt, CEO of Time Warner Cable

I spent the morning dealing with the dentist and some significant tooth pain, which could end up leading to another delightful root canal.  It’s times like these when I like to share the pain.  Back on April 2nd, Time Warner CEO Glenn Britt spoke with CNBC reporter Julia Boorstin about Britt’s thoughts on Internet Overcharging, the state of the cable industry, the growing reliance Time Warner Cable has on its broadband products, and where online video fits into the picture.  Although Time Warner Cable shelved the consumption billing experiment, the belief in such billing experiments has not changed.

Virtually everything else in the interview remains largely the same for the company, including the all-important topic of TV Everywhere and online video content, which is back in the news.

If you want to understand the challenges facing big cable, this is must-see-online-TV. (Check out the unintentionally ominous background music which appropriately turns up around four minutes in.)

[flv width=”400″ height=”300″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Glenn Britt 4-6-09.flv[/flv]

CNBC’s Julia Boorstin talked with Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt on April 2nd about the cable company and the state of the industry these days. (15 minutes)

PSP Go

The arrival of Sony’s update to the PlayStation Portable, the PSP Go, gives potential buyers more to ponder than its $250 price tag and the fact it excludes a UMD drive, which means many consumers will now download their games from the PlayStation Store. LevelUp casino is a website wherein you can play games without needing to download anything.

In areas where broadband service is loaded down with Internet Overcharging schemes like usage allowances and overlimit fees, the first question for potential PSP Go owners is, “how big are these games?”

They are right to be concerned… and confused.  There has been considerable debate over the size of the average PSP Go game.  Some retailers have been talking about Go games running 50-100 megabytes.

But Al De Leon, PR Manager for Sony Computer Entertainment America, has stated the average size of a PSP Go downloadable game will be between 600-800 megabytes and no upper limit has yet been announced.  A few consumers who purchased the device discovered “no upper limit” is the operative phrase.  They found some examples among PSP titles on offer:

• Gran Turismo is 937 megabytes
• God of War: Chains of Olympus is 1.29 gigabytes
• Resistance: Retribution is 1.4 gigabytes

Of course, some games will be much smaller, especially those designed for playing on the Go. Enjoy competitive odds on kabaddi games with https://4rabetsite.com/sports/kabaddi-138.

Sony’s experiments with online game distribution could foretell a future where game titles are increasingly distributed online to consumers, which reduces manufacturing costs and speeds delivery to eager buyers.  But that future may be hampered if broadband providers implement usage allowances, particularly at the lower limits some companies have experimented with.  Frontier’s infamous 5 gigabyte, unenforced limit in their Acceptable Use Policy is a good example.

Cable ONE, owned by the Net Neutrality-bashing Washington Post, has turned the art of broadband service into a science of confusion for its customers.

In addition to introducing a forthcoming new, faster tier of service, offering speeds at 12Mbps downstream and 1.5Mbps upstream, Cable ONE has been tinkering with their convoluted usage capping system, which combines a daily usage allowance with throttled speeds and exempt periods during traditionally lower usage hours.

See if you can understand their new usage limit chart, and even if you can, ask yourself if your parents will pick up what they are putting down:

(Click to enlarge)

Karl Bode at Broadband Reports thinks “Standard Speed” refers to Cable ONE’s throttle — reducing effective speeds by half, assuming you exceed your “threshold.”  The limits shown are reset daily.  Exceeding that limit many times during a month can technically get your service suspended, but we’ve not heard of anyone who either hasn’t been able to talk their way out of it with company officials or who haven’t been bothered by local system managers who are probably just as confounded by this crazy cap scheme as we are.

Cable ONE customers like the new speed offering, if and when it arrives in their respective communities, but hate the silly usage allowances and speed throttles that accompany them.  As Stop the Cap! has always said, consumers are beating the doors down waiting to throw more dollars at broadband providers who offer them the higher speed service they desire.

Instead, some providers would rather create Internet Overcharging schemes to reduce demand and expenses, and profit the proceeds.  If given a competitive choice, consumers will leave a cap-happy provider for someone else who actually listens to customers.  Unfortunately, for too many Americans, the key words are “if given a competitive choice.”

A customer in Boise notes, “I can’t even watch a full movie from Netflix without getting my speed cut in half.  I started the movie at 12pm and by 1pm my speed was cut in half.  When I called Cable ONE and asked about my bandwidth, they wouldn’t even tell me if I crossed the threshold limit.  They kept dancing around my question with ‘it may have been reduced.’  Wake up Cable ONE!”

Many Cable ONE customers are located in smaller cities and communities that currently have just one other option – DSL service from the local phone company.  For many residents, that tops out at 1.5Mbps or 3Mbps downstream.  But for some, it’s better than being usage capped by cable.

Perhaps Cable ONE would do good to watch their own advertisements, which promise: “It’s the way we always listen, to every word you say; loud and clear is how we hear, there’s just no other way.”

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Stop the Cap! calls on Cable ONE to discard confusing, impenetrable usage allowances that few customers can find on their website and even fewer actually understand.  Investing in your network with the proceeds of higher speed premium service tiers and making upgrades to DOCSIS 3 can provide additional bandwidth and profit opportunities while customers can sit back, “enjoy the fun with Cable ONE,” and relax with the broadband service they pay good money to receive.  Cable ONE already provides customers with a way to self-regulate their usage, by selecting a speed tier that is comfortable for them and their anticipated Internet needs.