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?

Professor Rodney Tiffen

The Sydney Morning Herald ran a piece Friday morning that had absolutely nothing nice to say about the former leadership of Telstra, Australia’s “Private Telecom Monopoly.”

Sol Trujillo was the George W. Bush of telecommunications. For both, the American way was the only way. Being the biggest meant you did not have to do diplomacy, and both were better at starting wars than finishing them. Both used patronage and punishment to ensure a like-minded leadership group that made worse decisions more harmoniously.

Australians remain unimpressed with the tumbleweeds that routinely blow across the Land Down Under’s broadband superhighway — the result of a combination of failed government leadership, special-interest dominated public policies which put the interests of private companies ahead of their own citizens, and the predictable emergence of greedy telecommunications providers delivering the least possible service at the highest possible price for millions of Australians.

Rodney Tiffen, professor of government at the University of Sydney, calls out a succession of Australian governments which have repeatedly dropped the broadband ball, and have left the country with comparatively overpriced service with ludicrous Internet Overcharging schemes that punish citizens with usage caps, outrageous reductions in their broadband speeds or, worse, overlimit fees and penalties:

Australian consumers suffered particularly from the stringent caps placed on downloads and the high expense of exceeding the cap. While in nine of the countries no explicit caps were placed on broadband subscriptions, Australia was one of only four countries (with New Zealand, Canada and Belgium) where all survey offers included caps, and among these four was by far the most expensive when the caps were exceeded – an average of 11 cents per megabyte compared with 1 cent for the others.

Tiffen rejects the argument that Australians have to pay more because Australia has low population density.

“It should also be remembered Australia has a higher percentage of people living in large cities (defined as those with more than three-quarters of a million people) than any of the other countries (measured by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development),” Tiffen writes.

The key policy issue Tiffen identifies is: what is a natural monopoly and when does competition produce more dynamism and responsiveness to consumers? Since telecommunications reform came on to the public agenda about two decades ago, there had been a bipartisan failure to address this central question.

Tiffen wants Australia to recognize the mistakes America made dealing with its cable television industry — “replete with cases where a company controlling the delivery platform has favoured its own company’s channels over its competitors.”

“Indeed a private monopoly at a key gate-keeping point often leads to less competition in services than there would be with a publicly owned or regulated infrastructure,” Tiffen argues.

Mark Cuban, owner of HDNet, maintains a personal blog

Mark Cuban is on another tear this week.  Stop the Cap! reader Michael referred us to the latest.  This time it’s TV Everywhere, the cable industry’s answer to online video they get to own and control.

TV Everywhere is a concept put out by TV distributors that basically says that if you pay for cable or satellite, you should be able to watch the content you want, where you want. Everywhere. To some people this is not a good idea.  As is always the case,  many people think tv programming should be widely available for free on the internet.  Of course the content is never free. Someone has to pay to create it and we purchasers of cable and satellite services pay the subscription fees that pay the content companies and allow them to create all that content. Someone always must pay for free. Its unfortunate that there are some incredibly greedy people who think their entertainment needs should be subsidized. We aren’t talking healthcare, we are talking The Simpsons.  No one in the country has the right for their Simpsons to be subsidized.

I am uncertain why Mark is tilting at windmills here, fighting a battle with arguments that are beside the point.

He should know, as an independent programmer, permitting another cartel for video program distribution online has the potential to place control of that content in the hands of the pay television industry.  Agreements to carry a cable network on a cable system could easily become contingent on participation in TV Everywhere once it becomes more established.  Mark knows all about restrictive carriage agreements.  Some of his networks were trapped in a mini-premium HD tier on Time Warner Cable, despite his wishes to see them a part of the general HD lineup.  Once Time Warner Cable threw his networks off their cable systems nationwide, presumably so would go our online access to it as well.

For consumers, the basic concept of TV Everywhere seems like a positive development, if it brings online video content people want to see without charging them yet another fee on their pay television bill.  Consumers, raise your hand if you have a problem with more online video.

In fact, the loudest concerns about the entire endeavor these days are coming from the content producers and owners themselves.  They are the ones worrying about giving content away.

The Wall Street Journal chronicles the concerns:

While 24 networks are taking part in the Comcast trial, including Time Warner’s Turner cable networks, broadcaster CBS, AMC, BBC America, and Hallmark Channel, Walt Disney Co. (DIS) has so far avoided the “TV Everywhere” experiment because it doesn’t offer the Disney networks enough money in return for allowing their shows to be streamed over the Web.

“A new opportunity to reach consumers is very attractive … [but] we want to do so in a way that delivers proper compensation [to us] for that value,” said Disney Chief Financial Officer Tom Staggs, who spoke at the Goldman Sachs media conference on Tuesday.

That brought out Jeff Bewkes, Time Warner CEO, who scoffed at the demands for compensation.  Bewkes reminded Disney who is paying the bills.

“[The content providers are] not the ones who are going to the effort and expense of making this possible,” he remarked. “The ones that are making this possible are the distributors – the telcos, the satellite companies, the cable companies.”

Second, nobody is arguing that TV programming should be given away “free” online with absolutely no compensation.  The existing online video models are primarily advertiser supported.  The advertisers pay the costs to make the service available, and viewers endure online commercials during each ad break.  Some networks want to cram a ton of ads equaling the number a viewer would see on their television (get ready for more Snuggie and door draft stick on tape ads). Others are more realistic and will place a maximum of 30 seconds of commercials during each break.  Finding the right balance will be important — too many ads and consumers will pirate the content to avoid the ads.  Run smaller amounts and consumers will easily tolerate them.

Third, nobody I am aware of is arguing TV needs to be “subsidized.”  What does that even mean?

Besides the skirmish between content providers and the companies that want to distribute TV Everywhere, the concerns I’ve seen expressed include:

• The concentration and control of online video content through a cable industry-controlled authentication system that is long on generalities and short on specifics regarding how it will operate.  How do non-cable subscribers get “authenticated.”  What procedures are in place to protect the competitive data other providers will have to share with any authentication process?  How about customer privacy?  Is there equity of access to TV Everywhere regardless of the pay television service the consumer subscribes to?
• The credibility of the broadband providers’ argument that their networks are already overcrowded to the point they must “experiment” with usage caps, consumption billing, and other Internet Overcharging schemes.  Apparently their networks aren’t nearly as congested as they would have us believe, considering the fact they are participating in a project to place an even greater load on those networks.
• Mark seems to support content portability, namely the ability for a subscriber to place that content on any device for viewing.  Good luck.  Content producers go bananas over content that can be downloaded and viewed on any device or computer, because such open standards are also open to rampant piracy.

TV Everywhere can be a consumer value-added service for pay television providers, if it’s handled in a consumer friendly way.  The cable industry does not have an excellent track record of keeping their customers in love with them.  My personal concern is that what TV Everywhere gives away for free to “authenticated” subscribers today will tomorrow be packed with advertising, carry an additional fee for access on your cable bill, and will be just one more excuse to try and ram usage caps and consumption billing down the throats of the broadband customers trying to take advantage of their broadband service.

Motorola SB6120 SURFboard DOCSIS 3.0 eXtreme Broadband Cable Modem

Another year, another rate hike for millions of Comcast customers.  The cable company is notifying cable subscribers of rate increases for programming and equipment.  While Comcast says the rate increases are among the lowest the company has implemented, the sting will be felt differently based on the types of services a customer receives.  One particularly nasty increase is for the cable modem rental fee.  In most areas, that used to be $3 a month, but is now increasing a whopping 66% to $5 a month.  Comcast blames the increased equipment expenses incurred upgrading their broadband network.

Consumers can avoid the monthly rental fee by purchasing their own cable modem, retailing for $60-100 depending on the model.  A Motorola SB6120 SURFboard DOCSIS 3.0 eXtreme Broadband Cable Modem is available from Amazon.com for less than $90 and works with Comcast.

Although not every Comcast customer rents a cable modem from the company, the company will earn hundreds of millions of dollars in new revenue from the rate increase for cable modems, according to Multichannel News.

The Marin Independent Journal crunched the numbers:

In the San Francisco area, where Comcast has 2.2 million customers, the average rate increase will be 1.6 percent, down from a 4.9 percent spike in 2008-09 and a 6.9 percent jump in 2005-06.This year’s rate increase is the lowest in the past six years in what has become an annual rate hike for Comcast customers. The company has raised rates on its average Marin customer by a cumulative 29.5 percent over the past six years, based on the company’s annual notices of price changes.

The San Jose Mercury News observes that the rate increases will hit some harder than others:

Ironically, the customers who will see their rates increase are those who subscribe to the company’s lowest-end — and least-enhanced — packages. Subscribers to Comcast’s more expensive packages generally will see no rate increase.

Mindy Spat, communications director of The Utility Reform Network, a San Francisco-based consumer advocacy organization, said Comcast appears to be taking advantage of its lower-end customers.

She noted that many Bay Area consumers who were unable to tune in the new digital broadcast signals signed up for limited basic cable to continue to get the local channels after the old analog ones were switched off earlier this year. With the increases, Comcast also appears to be trying to push customers into higher-tier packages, she charged.

“If consumers had choices, they certainly would not choose Comcast,” Spat said. “But they don’t, and Comcast is taking advantage of the fact.”

Of course, the only thing not increasing this year is Comcast’s 250GB usage cap.  It remains locked firmly in place at 2008 levels.  How much Comcast will recoup from a perpetual modem rental fee providing up to $300+ million a year in new revenue is an open question.  But clearly some cable operators intend to pay for upgrades to their networks by means other than forcing consumers into consumption billing schemes.

Cricket has a nasty habit of selling customers an unlimited mobile broadband service… that is limited to 5GB of usage per month.  Today, the company announced it would be expanding its prepaid wireless broadband service to “big box” retail stores nationwide:

Cricket Broadband will soon be available in nearly 1,000 national retailer stores through a new all-inclusive $50 monthly service plan. The new plan will include all fees and taxes and provides unlimited Internet access without a signed contract or credit check. The Cricket A600 modem will be available as a grab-and-go offering for $69.99 with no activation fee. $50.00 top-up cards will also be available for this product.

The marketing on their website underlines the point: “With unlimited broadband access you can email, surf and download from your desktop or laptop anywhere in Cricket Broadband’s coverage areas.”

“Unlimited” in their marketing is actually “5GB” in the nitty-gritty details on their website as you sign-up:

Subscriber Management
We reserve the right to protect our network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance. We reserve the right to limit throughput speeds or amount of data transferred, and to deny, modify or terminate service, without notice, to anyone whose usage adversely impacts our network, service levels or uses more than 5 GB in a given month. We may monitor your compliance with the above but will not monitor the content of your communications except as otherwise expressly permitted or required by law.

Cricket needs to discontinue the practice of referring to a service as “unlimited” when it isn’t unlimited at all.  Cricket is also well aware of the 5GB limitation, because it is currently testing a 10GB plan priced at $60 a month.

Cricket has also applied for federal broadband stimulus funding to provide service to low income residents:

Low-income residents in San Diego County who can’t afford Internet service may get some financial help if a local wireless provider succeeds in getting more than $8 million in federal stimulus funds to expand broadband access.

San Diego-based Cricket Communications said yesterday that it has applied for federal Recovery Act funding geared to expanding high-speed Internet access not only in more remote rural areas but also to the urban poor.

Cricket is proposing a $10.7 million program to provide subsidized, low-cost Internet service to 23,000 low-income families in San Diego, Baltimore, Houston, Memphis, Tenn., and Washington, D.C.

Under the proposal, the federal government would cover 80 percent of the cost, with Cricket picking up the remainder. Cricket, a wholly owned subsidiary of Leap Wireless International, is working with One Economy, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit, to help it reach out to low-income households.

In addition, it plans to substantially discount its normal monthly service of $40 so that participants would pay $5 a month the first year and $15 a month the second year. The grant would cover two years of subsidized service.

As for Cricket’s new broadband plan, I’m unsure what’s new about it.  It appears to be priced $10 higher than the old $40 Cricket plan (that comes with a $25 activation fee).  The A600 modem is available for free after rebate from the Cricket website, and the service price there remains $40 a month, although “taxes and fees” are extra, which may account for the primary difference between the two plans. Cricket appears to be moving to “all-inclusive” pricing strategies, which means the price you see is your “out the door” price. Many consumers are shocked when signing up for a mobile phone service that is advertised at one price, and turns out to be considerably higher once taxes and fees are included on the bill.

The A600 offers average download speeds of 538 kilobits per second (Kbps) and peaks at 787 Kbps. The average upload speeds offered by this modem are of the order of 502 Kbps, according to a PC Magazine review.

[Update 9/22: A response from Zocolo Group on behalf of Cricket can be found in the comment section of this article.]