Cisco is back with their latest report about the “coming exaflood” set to alarmist headlines in the press.

In the spring, the prevailing theory of one “research group” was that bottlenecks would ruin the net’s usefulness by 2011.  That was the one adopted by Time Warner Cable’s unsuccessful efforts to convince residents in four cities that Internet Overcharging was a good idea.  Last month, Australian breakfast television viewers were dropping muffins back on their plates when they were told the Internet was going to be subjected to a massive traffic jam by 2012.  The date of the potential online apocalypse has been pushed forward to 2013 this month, the last year Cisco covers in their data model.

Of course, all such “exafloods” can be mitigated to some degree by purchasing Cisco products and services to handle the tsunami of traffic.

Companies that have a vested interest in doing such studies, in this case to help spur upgrades, always casts suspicion over the results.

The results of those studies are often sold to advocacy organizations (if not quietly funded by them outright) to integrate into lobbying campaigns.  In the push for “exaflood” panic, some of the lobbying groups seek government investment in broadband infrastructure on behalf of their clients, others want to use the Internet growth argument to prove there is a need to engage in Internet Overcharging to finance construction of improved networks (even at a time when some of those companies enjoy billions in profits and have systematically reduced investment in maintaining and expanding those networks).  Cisco’s interests may be closer to home — generating revenue for themselves.

One man who doesn’t have anything to gain from the results is Andrew M. Odlyzko, who runs Minnesota Internet Traffic Studies at the University of Minnesota, an ongoing project to soberly analyze Internet growth.  Unlike others who have repeatedly warned about Internet brownouts, crashes, and slowdowns, Odlyzko doesn’t have a “dog in this fight.”  Once you strip away the self-interests many others have in promoting an “exaflood” agenda, the simple fact remains: with growth in demand also comes growth in new technology and capacity to meet it.  Odlyzko continues to point towards slowing growth.

“In spite of continuing stories about a flood of video overwhelming the Internet, global wireline traffic shows no sign of moving up from its approximately 50 to 60% per year growth rate. If anything, the trend lines point down, not up,” according to the results posted on his website.  Cisco had to echo Odlyzko’s predictions during this past year, but the company blamed the global economic downturn in their report for the decline in the growth curve.

The Economist also debunks the panic attacks:

Talk of exafloods is nothing less than scaremongering and has no bearing on reality, even though video traffic is increasing substantially, says Grant van Rooyen of Level 3, a company based in Broomfield, Colorado. It operates network backbones that carry around a quarter of the world’s internet traffic. “We estimate that 50-60% of traffic today is video, but it’s been that way for the last three to four years,” he says. “We really don’t think we’re going to see a massive failing of the infrastructure.”

Level 3 has been regularly upgrading its capacity, and will continue to do so, says Mr van Rooyen. “This isn’t like building a toll-road with an inflexible infrastructure,” he says. “In the network world, we are able to scale infrastructure and capacity in real time.” When bunches of optical fibres are laid in the ground or on the seabed, for example, not all of them are immediately used, or “lit”. So the capacity of a link can be increased by lighting more fibres. Even when all the fibres are lit, capacity can be further increased by upgrading the equipment at each end of the fibre. Technological progress means the amount of information that can be squeezed down each fibre is steadily increasing.

Back in 1995 Bob Metcalfe, an internet guru and the founder of 3Com, a network-equipment maker, predicted in a magazine article that the internet would suffer “gigalapses” and grind to a halt by the end of 1996. He promised to eat his words if it did not. His gloomy prediction was proved wrong, and in 1997 he duly put the offending article in a blender with some water at an industry conference, and ate the resulting pulp with a spoon.

If cable operators intend to impose Internet Overcharging schemes to measure and cap residential broadband accounts, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must impose equal treatment on traditional video cable television packages to allow customers to subscribe to only the channels they want.

The Austin Broadband Interest Group, a not-for-profit broadband advocacy organization, calls out the cable television industry for advocating an end to flat rate broadband service at the same time they continue to resist a-la-carte pricing for cable television packages.

In a filing with the FCC as part of a nationwide broadband policy inquiry, the Texas group recites the history of Time Warner Cable’s recent proposed experiment curtailing current flat rate Internet service.  Time Warner Cable planned to expand its Internet Overcharging market test conducted in Beaumont, Texas into four additional cities: Austin and San Antonio in Texas, Rochester in western New York, and the Triad region of North Carolina.  Customers in the test would have faced the prospect of paying 300% more for an equivalent level of flat rate service, with bills increasing from $40-50 a month to a staggering $150 a month, with no increase in speed or immediate improvement in service.

The Austin group claims that such Internet Overcharging efforts are designed to protect Time Warner Cable’s video business model, which includes the packaging of flat rate video cable TV packages to customers across the country.  Time Warner Cable, among other cable providers, have grown increasingly concerned about free online video potentially discouraging customers from subscribing to a cable television package.  Industry executives fear that new generations of Internet users will dispense with traditional cable TV service, obtaining video entertainment online, instead.

The group advocates the FCC enforce a rule that any broadband provider that wants to implement limits or consumption-based service tiers must also offer the same pricing model for video programming.  Matthew A. Henry and Chip Rosenthal, authors of the filing, include other competing video providers in their comments.  Telephone companies, including AT&T and Verizon, have begun offering video services to customers in addition to broadband packages.  AT&T is testing an Internet Overcharging scheme to limit consumption in two cities — Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada.

The cable industry has struggled with Congress and the Commission for years to prevent the imposition of a-la-carte video programming pricing, permitting customers to pay for only the channels they want to watch.  The industry claims it would destroy the business model of cable television, where cable programmers like CNN, The Weather Channel, A&E, and most others impose a subscription fee based on the number of “basic cable” subscribers that have access to those channels.  Most networks charge between 10-80 cents per subscriber, with some sports-related channels charging considerably more.  By dividing the costs among every subscriber, the industry argues, it can deliver a robust video package to everyone for the same price.

Unfortunately, cable programmers continually increase the rates they charge for their cable networks, often well above the rate of inflation, and many broadcast networks and stations also demand cable companies take on new networks they may not necessarily want, to obtain continued permission to carry local stations on the cable dial. The result: relentless annual rate increases for cable television packages.

The inequity of cable’s argument that it must be allowed to continue providing flat rate television programming packages (and disallow a-la-carte) while programming costs increase, while demanding an end to flat rate Internet pricing, despite a decrease in the costs to provide it, suggests “fairness” is not the motivation for proposing such Internet Overcharging schemes:

In May of 2009, Time Warner Chief Executive Officer Glenn Britt essentially admitted that the competitive threat of online video to traditional cable is the driving force behind the company’s capped and metered pricing model. Mr. Britt told investors, “If, at an extreme, you could get all of the programming you get over cable for free on the Internet, over time people will stop buying (TV).”  Unfortunately, Time Warner has chosen to protect its cable revenues through unfairly restricting usage of its broadband service. This clearly demonstrates the need regulatory ground rules aimed at dissuading such anti-consumer and anti-broadband business practices.

Rather than representing a “fair” method of billing, metered pricing plans and usage caps are a strategy intended to salvage diminishing cable revenues by forcing users to use less Internet. Users have been watching increasing amounts of video online, with some abandoning their cable service altogether in favor of broadband (an effect that has been sped by the struggling economy). This presents an obvious dilemma for broadband providers that also offer a cable product, like Time Warner: as online video watching goes up, the revenue-generating cable usage goes down. Online video is bad for business because a cable company directly profits from its cable content through advertising, pay-per-view and video-on-demand, but can’t profit off Internet content. The fact is that Time Warner is offering competing products and the company has a vested interest in cable video prevailing over Internet video. Time Warner introduced metered pricing and usage caps to make its customers turn off their computers and pick up the remote.

iAWFUL (which stands for Internet Advocates Watchlist for Ugly Laws) launched this week, calling attention to the “most reckless and misguided laws” impacting the Internet.

The site, a project of NetChoice, a Washington, DC eCommerce advocacy group, particularly opposes what they feel are “misguided” regulatory approaches to online problems by well meaning lawmakers, often on the state level. NetChoice claims to be a coalition of trade associations, eCommerce businesses, and online consumers, “all of whom share the goal of promoting convenience, choice and commerce on the Net.”

The inaugural list of the worst contains several state tax initiatives targeting Internet commerce, rules forcing websites to spend more time and effort enforcing their abuse of service policies, and an effort to regulate online ticket sales.  NetChoice also challenges efforts by lawmakers to incorporate certain standards, such as security and encryption, into law.

Presumably, the weight given to determining which are the “worst” laws is determined in part by the group’s members:

1-800-Contacts
America Online/Time Warner
American Vintners Association
Association for Competitive Technology
eBay
Electronic Retailing Association
IAC
Internet Alliance
NewsCorp
Oracle
Overstock.com
VeriSign
Yahoo!
The Wine Institute

One of the intended purposes of the iAWFUL list is to draft consumers into the fight against the targeted legislation.  While most of the inaugural list’s targets are anti-consumer, NetChoice doesn’t answer exclusively to those consumers.  They answer to the members who belong to the organization.  Often, the interests of consumers and business do merge, but not always.

Knee-jerk, overly prescriptive laws can destroy whole business models or stifle innovative new forms of communication before they have a chance to emerge. Too many laws are proposed without considering unintended harm they may cause to thousands of Internet companies and millions of Internet users.

NetChoice is dedicated to fighting these attacks on core Internet principles.

Destroying business models may not always be anti-consumer.  On our own issue of Internet Overcharging, could legislation designed to put an end to it be seen as a friend or foe to NetChoice?  A business model alone may be worthy of fighting to protect, but as Stop the Cap! readers understand, that isn’t always true.  Legislators are not the only ones capable of engaging in overreaching antics.  Some of NetChoice’s member companies have done that themselves.

Care must also be given to determine the exact definitions of “stifling” and “core Internet principles.”  The former may be a matter of perspective, the latter is not defined at all.

Perhaps iAWFUL will be a consistently positive asset for consumers and will not incorporate laws designed to protect consumers from anti-competitive behavior and Internet Overcharging onto their top 10 list.  Time will tell.  But consumers should always be wary about Internet organizations that claim to represent consumer interests, but rely on industry money to keep the lights on.  Some of those groups, particularly those in Washington, turn out to be astroturf organizations that claim to represent ordinary citizens, but really front for commercial interests, which often have a different agenda.

Stop the Cap! reader John, who lives in Beaumont, Texas, went shopping for Internet access recently and was sold on broadband from AT&T:

I looked for and did not find any reference to caps, and called the sales department. I was told there were no caps. I signed up and when tech support helped me with the registration, the tech bragged how AT&T had no caps when cable companies (Time Warner) did. The day after I installed, I received the express letter stating there was a cap trial in the Beaumont area. The cap is 80GB for my “Elite” service plan. The overage charge is $1.00 per Gig.

Of course what John, and many other residents in Beaumont may not have realized is that AT&T is continuing to test their Internet Overcharging schemes in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada.  AT&T’s website and marketing materials are generally targeted to a nationwide customer base, and it’s easy to receive marketing materials that don’t disclose you reside in the two unluckiest cities in America to be an AT&T broadband customer.

If John is subject to any long term service commitments, he should have the right to exit his contract and terminate service without any further obligation.

Time after time, customers learning of Internet Overcharging with unwarranted limits and penalties are left angry and upset.

One of the nation’s top authorities on global Internet traffic growth says his latest data show no reason to fear network capacity shortages, as traffic growth may even be slightly decelerating.

An article published Tuesday in Telephony Online carries new evidence that the so-called “bandwidth crisis” may be based more on fear than reality.

Professor Andrew Odlyzko, director of the University of Minnesota’s Interdisciplinary Digital Technology Center, released a report last week charting the growth in Internet traffic.   Odlyzko concluded that growth continues at predicted levels between 50-60% per year, which is unchanged for at least the past three years.

Odlyzko introduced his research remarking that the “threatened deluge that was supposed to clog the Internet” still has not made any appearance.   In fact, he said, bandwidth rates may in fact be trending downwards.

Proponents of the Network Bandwidth Congestion Crisis theory usually argue that the apocalyptic end of the Internet as we know it will occur either from capacity shortages on the Internet backbone, or because of congestion at the local “last mile” level, between the broadband provider and your home.

But the raw data suggests neither is an impending threat, particularly assuming that broadband providers do not attempt to shortchange stable investment in their networks to meet the demands of their growing customer base.

Broadband providers could engineer a self-fulfilling prophecy of a bandwidth crisis if they reduce their investment in their networks, preferring to take additional profits from the broadband business while cutting costs in order to prop up shareholder return or profitability.   But such moves, which are often uncovered by carefully reviewing required public filings made for shareholder review, would quickly expose the fallacy of the position taken by several bandwidth providers that usage caps are necessary to reduce demand, which could have been met by responsible company practices to maintain and expand their networks to the same historic degree they have done for the last several years.