A small wireless ISP owner who regularly complains about Net Neutrality and an industry friendly group that opposes broadband oversight were the handpicked guests at a hearing held today to investigate Net Neutrality.  Only one witness, Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge was there to defend the important consumer net protection principle.

The hearing, held by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on IP, Competition and the Internet was among the first held in the new Republican-controlled Congress, which overwhelmingly opposes Net Neutrality.  It opened an opportunity for Net Neutrality-opponents to attack the watered down rules, adopted by the Federal Communications Commission last December.

Laurence “Brett” Glass, owner of Lariat, a wireless ISP in Laramie, Wyoming, is a familiar name to those who follow comment sections of public interest websites and newspapers.  Glass regularly attacks the concept of Net Neutrality and favors Internet Overcharging schemes, if only to protect revenues on his bandwidth-limited wireless ISP.

Glass told Congress adoption of even the FCC’s watered down regulations will put his company’s future at risk because they could be interpreted to allow “servers” on his network.  Andrew Schwartzman, a net-neutrality proponent and senior vice president at the Media Access Project, says the restriction could technically violate rules, but only if it was argued as a prohibition of attaching server hardware/equipment.

“He is describing a practice which would violate Michael Powell’s 4 principles from 2005 (I think) since it allows end users to attach any device,” Schwartzman said in an e-mail to The Hill.

Of course, the watered down Net Neutrality regulations exempt wireless networks, and Glass’ argument ignores the long-recognized concept of the Acceptable Use Policy, which prohibits network activities that can create problems for the network itself or other customers.  The FCC moving in to crush Lariat over such a scenario is hard to imagine in any case.

Larry Downes, another witness, represents the Big Telecom-friendly TechFreedom, which loathes industry regulations that could impact big players like AT&T and Verizon.

Downes argued the Net Neutrality rules were slipped in during the Lame Duck Session to avoid Republican scrutiny on Capitol Hill and are completely unnecessary.  Downes argues:

• There is no need for new regulation because there were never any serious violations (ignoring the Comcast incident that interfered with network traffic and the subsequent adventures (by others) this year on the wireless side where content access is being repackaged and sold by third parties based on access and usage).
• Enforcement mechanisms are complex and expensive: It costs too much to investigate, so why bother?
• Exceptions reveal a profound misunderstanding of “the Open Internet”: Downes argues today’s well-accepted concept of speed equality and agnostic network management are simply popular with consumers and irrelevant to the technical workings of the Internet itself.
• The FCC lacked authority to issue the rules—and likely knew it: By not invoking appropriate authority, the FCC’s new Net Neutrality policies may fail to pass court scrutiny.

Downes favors a different kind of net freedom — one for corporations to treat the online ecosystem as they please and let the free market sort it out.  If you are served by two providers who believe in Internet Overcharging schemes and speed throttles, so be it.  If you’re lucky enough to be served by a provider that supports today’s online experience, lucky you.

The FCC evidently was not invited to testify about their own policy.  Instead, Public Knowledge’s Gigi Sohn argued for Net Neutrality, but even she complains the FCC’s current provisions of that policy don’t go far enough.  Public Knowledge is planning a pushback against Republican-led efforts to repeal Net Neutrality in a campaign launching later this week — The Internet Strikes Back.

(Click the image on the left to enroll in the campaign and participate in the effort to stand up for Net Neutrality this Thursday.)

Public Knowledge:

You – the Internet – are going to make it clear that ISPs cannot be gatekeepers and do not get to choose which websites work and which websites do not work.  You – the Internet – will tell all of Congress to join the 105 Representatives who have already come out clearly in support of a free and open Internet.

Time Warner Cable’s “Whole House DVR” service has arrived on the east coast, and it’s no longer only available to the company’s super-premium customers.  Now every subscriber in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and South Carolina can get the service without signing up for a $200 monthly service package.

The service’s biggest selling feature is the possibility of starting a recorded show on one television and picking up where you left off on another — perfect for late night viewing that continues in the bedroom before nodding off.  By networking set top boxes to communicate with one-another, customers are no longer tied down to a single television set watching their recorded shows.

The cable company is a bit late to the party.  Verizon FiOS, AT&T’s U-verse, and even satellite providers like DirecTV have offered this functionality for a few years now, but for customers who can’t or don’t do business with those rivals, it’s a nice addition to the company’s offerings.

But how well does it work?  Stop the Cap! found out after having our existing DVR boxes switched out for the new service last week.

Time Warner currently sells the service at different price points.  Bundled customers, especially those buying the company’s expensive Signature Home package for nearly $200 a month, will find the service included in their package.  Customers with bundles of services can upgrade their existing DVR units to Whole House service for just a few dollars more.  Standalone customers will spend $19.99 per month for the service, which includes the DVR box.  (Additional set top boxes on other televisions are provided at the usual rental price, around $7 a month.)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TW Cable Whole House DVR.flv[/flv]

Time Warner Cable’s promotional video introducing Whole House DVR service.  (1 minute)

The cable company is deploying different boxes in different areas.  You will end up with the Cisco Explorer 8642HDC, the Motorola DCX3400M or the Samsung SMT-H3272.  These boxes replace any existing DVR equipment already installed, so be prepared to lose your recordings when you upgrade — they cannot be transferred.

Time Warner requires a service call to upgrade your service for the new Whole House DVR.  That’s because the company must install new filters on your cable line which block signals that can interfere with the boxes.  Time Warner uses the Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) home networking standard.

Motorola DCX3400M

In our area, the favored box is the Cisco unit.  It’s larger than its predecessor — the Scientific Atlanta 8300,and has an updated look.  The older box was silver in color.  Today’s look demands basic black and the 8642 delivers.  Heat dissipation was obviously a major concern for Cisco, and the box is well ventilated, and even carries a fan, about the size of a CPU.  Hard drive failure is the single most common reason for DVR problems, and a spinning hard drive often throws off considerable heat.  Stacking boxes together in an enclosed home entertainment center cabinet eventually spells doom for many DVR units.  Hopefully, the improved ventilation will reduce those failures.

Capacity has also been an ongoing concern for DVR users.  The hard drives in most traditional DVRs were designed to accommodate standard definition cable programming, not today’s world of HD channel choices.  Time Warner has dramatically beefed up capacity offering Whole House DVR service with 500GB of storage — a major improvement over earlier boxes.  The company says this should allow customers to record up to 75 hours of HD programming.

After Time Warner installed the necessary filters, checked line quality, and verified where we wanted the boxes placed, in came the new equipment.  In addition to the 8642 DVR box downstairs, an accompanying “client” set top unit replaced the existing box we had in the bedroom.  The client boxes are similar in style to the DVR, but considerably smaller.  Time Warner will install the Cisco Explorer 4642HDC, Motorola DCX3200M or Samsung SMT-H3262 on any television where you want to watch your recorded shows.

After installation is complete, Time Warner adds the set top equipment to your account and that authorizes the service.

Recording and watching shows will be very familiar if you have used DVR service from Time Warner before.  Recordings are accessed from client boxes just as if you were in front of a traditional DVR box.

Basic Whole House DVR service allows customers to record two shows at once while also watching a recorded show.  If your home needs additional recording capability, you can obtain additional equipment that will let you record four shows at the same time for an additional charge.

Overall, everything about the service feels evolutionary, not revolutionary.  Time Warner is simply extending the DVR service to additional televisions in the home without the need for DVR equipment on every set.  Taking shows with you from room to room is by far the biggest selling point of Whole House DVR, but it carries a price.  What originally began as a $9.95 add-on for DVR service is quickly getting more costly.  Two rate increases just a few years apart have upped the price for traditional DVR service to $11.95 per month, and now Time Warner is breaking the cost of the recording service out of the price to rent to equipment.  That means you can expect to pay up to $20 a month for DVR service, plus additional rental fees for every additional box in the house.  Packaged bundles can bring those costs down, and asking about special deals and offers before signing up can make a major difference in price.

One thing we do expect in the future: additional leveraging of MoCA technology, which can support far more than just multi-room DVR service.  This technology can handle multiple simultaneous HDTV, SDTV, DVR, data, gaming, and voice streams. It can support up to 1 Gbps home networks and is consistent with DLNA, CableHome, UPnP™ Technology, and 1394.  That means applications like multi-room gaming, or delivering all of your home entertainment system streams across a single coaxial cable is possible.  That could eventually challenge Ethernet cabling common in many newer homes, if improvements in wireless don’t make the very concept of cables obsolete.

What Works

• The service works consistently to record programs as requested, with no missed shows or failures;
• We were able to consistently access recorded shows on the unit with no pixels or glitches when playing them in full;
• The Cisco box remembers where we left off when we partially view recorded shows, for every show. This is an excellent new feature;
• There is plenty of recording space to handle today’s HD viewing choices;
• The box is virtually silent. We never heard the hard drive or any cooling fans, something we could not say about the earlier generation of DVR boxes;
• The menu options now let us consistently watch standard definition channels in “stretch” mode on our television without fussing with the picture settings;
• On demand channels are far more fluid and responsive, especially when accessing shows or flipping channels between them.

What Sort of Works

• Playback functions on client boxes are sloppy. Fast forward and rewind functions are imprecise at best;
• 4x fast forward and rewind functionality is gone;
• We found an inexcusable audio thumping sound present all-too-often during fast forward and rewind functions on client boxes;
• The ponderous Navigator software remains as awful as ever. Intuitive design is lacking, navigating through the on-screen program guide is torture, and managing and finding new shows to record is tedious. When will cable companies simply give up their bad designs and license Tivo?
• Remote recording through Time Warner’s MyServices website or from smartphone applications remains an inconsistent possibility. All too often this service is unavailable, and we found repeated instances when requested shows simply refused to be registered for recording. This remains “beta”-ware;
• If one of your cable boxes crashes, it can mess up your in-home viewing network. Boxes can sometimes become “de-registered” and forgotten by the primary set top DVR box.

What Doesn’t Work At All

• You cannot manage recordings on client boxes. That means you cannot delete old shows or schedule new ones unless you are in front of the DVR box;
• You cannot attach external storage devices to the Cisco set top box we tested, at least not yet. It appears add-on expanded storage, which can increase your recording capacity, is presently disabled;
• Our earlier DVR, the Scientific-Atlanta 8300, recorded several seconds before a recording was scheduled to begin, to make sure the start of a show was not cut off. The 8642 does not do this, so many shows we’ve recorded miss the first 10-20 seconds of the program;
• Multiple DVR homes do not benefit from the ability for one box to pick up recording a show if another is busy or full. This elegant add-on would be a real convenience;
• Rogers Cable customers in Ontario report their boxes do allow external add-on storage, but programming recorded on external hard drives cannot be accessed from client boxes;
• The equipment remains expensive. Canadians can purchase this equipment for under $400CAD, while Time Warner customers will pay rental fees… forever.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/MoCA DVR Installation.mp4[/flv]

Learn more about how MoCA-enabled services like Whole House DVR are installed in this video from the MoCA Alliance.  Ignoring the appalling acting, reminiscent of one of those late night movies on Cinemax where clothes start to come off, the video closely mirrors how our own installation went.  (7 minutes)

Phillip "Swimming Upstream... slowly" Dampier

I spent the better part of today finding, assembling, and finally uploading the audio and video content covering Canada’s ongoing hearings about Internet Overcharging.  Locating and editing the content took about two hours, writing the piece to accompany it took another hour, and then everything  s   l   o   w   e   d  down from there.

Uploading several hundred megabytes of audio and video, included in today’s articles, was by far the most cumbersome part of the operation.  In all, it took nearly four hours to upload a handful of video and audio files, and that saturated our cable modem to the brink of un-usability.

While most providers concentrate upgrades on boosting download speeds, upload speeds have remained remarkably consistent — and painfully slow, for several years now.

Time Warner Cable, which provides our Internet connection, tops out at just 1Mbps for uploads locally, and it is slower during peak usage times.  Contrast that with 2Mbps in more competitive cities (with 5Mbps now common wherever DOCSIS 3 technology has been deployed).  Still, at least it is better than the 384kbps residents in upstate New York contended with for a decade earlier.

Cable modem technology is built on the premise that you will download far more than you will need to upload, and speeds are provided accordingly.  DSL service from some phone companies has managed to keep up with upload speeds… barely, if only because many cable providers have largely ignored the upstream component.

But as the Internet and social media become a more interactive part of our lives, we increasingly need to give as much as we get, and our Internet Service Providers continue to let us down in too many cases.

The one exception is fiber-to-the-home service, which can deliver synchronous (identical upload and download) speeds to their customers.  Community-owned fiber networks continue to be the kindest to their customers, thinking of speed equality as an advantage, not a marketing option that commands a high price.  Many of these networks are owned and operated by local governments — you know, the people we’re told never do anything right.

Yet in many instances they alone have the prescience to recognize broadband speeds have a direct impact on efficiency — at home and at work.  Many are building networks that leverage as many megabits per second they can get.  Why?  Because they can.  Such a response is scoffed at by many cable and phone companies, most of whom claim you don’t need that kind of speed.

For those of us without access to such state-of-the-art networks, we’ll have to continue setting our sights considerably lower.  Time Warner will finally bring 50/5Mbps service to Rochester early this year.  As far as they’re concerned, we should be glad to have it.  It will cost just shy of $100 per month on a standalone basis.  If we lived in Chattanooga, Tenn., home of EPB, the municipal broadband provider would sell us 50/50Mbps service for nearly $20 a month less — $79.99 per month.

Canada’s House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry Science and Technology has taken an in-depth look at Internet Overcharging in an ongoing series of hearings to explore Bell’s petition to charge usage-based billing.  The request, earlier approved by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), would end flat rate, unlimited usage plans across the country, and mandate Bell’s proscribed usage cap regime on every ISP in Canada.

Remarkably, even Canada’s Conservative Party, which laid the deregulatory framework that allowed Canada’s barely-competitive market to stick it to consumers and small businesses, refuses to defend the overcharging schemes.

So far, the three hearings deliver everything Stop the Cap! has warned about since we began this fight in the summer of 2008:

1. Proof that usage caps, and consumption-based billing have nothing to do with cost recovery or fairness.  They are, at their root, economically engineered to discourage use of the Internet and protect revenue from the provider’s other businesses, especially video.
2. There is no evidence of a data tsunami, exaflood, or whatever other term providers and their financially-connected allies in the equipment business cook up to warn about an explosion of data usage mandating control measures.  Data usage is increasing at a slower rate than the development of new equipment and fiber pipelines to manage it.
3. Nobody ever saves a thing with Internet Overcharging schemes.  While Bell and other providers make up scary stories about “heavy users” picking “innocent” users’ pockets, it’s the providers themselves making all the money.  In fact, bytes of data have no intrinsic value.  The pipelines that deliver data at varying speeds do, which is why providers are well-compensated for use of them.  Levying additional charges for data consumption is nothing more than extra profit — a broadband usage tax.  Providers make plenty selling users increasingly profitable connections based on speed.  They do not need to be paid twice.
4. For all the talk about the need to invest in network expansion, Bell has reduced infrastructure spending on its core broadband networks the last three years’ running.  They are spending more on deploying Internet Protocol TV (IPTV), a service the company swears has nothing to do with the Internet or their broadband service (despite the fact it travels down the exact same pipeline).
5. Caps and usage billing never bring about innovation, except from providers looking for new ways to charge their customers more for less service.

I strongly encourage readers to spend an evening watching and listening to these hearings.  At least download the audio and let Canada’s broadband story penetrate.  You will laugh, cringe, and sometimes want to throw things at your multimedia player.

In the end, the hearings illustrate the points we’ve raised here repeatedly over the past three years, and it only strengthens our resolve to battle these Internet pricing ripoffs wherever they appear.  If you are a Canadian citizen,write your MP and demand an end to “usage-based billing” and make it clear this issue is paramount for your vote at the next election.  Don’t debate the numbers or waste time “compromising” on how much you want to be ripped off.  There is no middle ground for usage-based pricing.  It should be rejected at every turn, everywhere, with no compromises.  After all, aren’t you paying enough for your Internet connection already?

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

Meeting # 54 – Usage-based Billing Practices

February 3, 2011

This video is encoded in the Windows Media format which presents some technical challenges.  Full screen or 200% zoom-viewing mode is recommended.

[For Windows users, right click the video and select ‘Zoom->Full Screen’ or ‘Zoom->200%’.]

This hearing was televised and had the most media attention.  Testimony from the CRTC was decidedly defensive, and almost entirely in support of usage-based billing and Bell’s petition.  The Commission found no friends in this hearing.

Appearing from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: Konrad W. von Finckenstein, Chairman; Len Katz, Vice-Chairman, Telecommunications; Lynne Fancy, Acting Executive Director, Telecommunications.  (1 hour, 29 minutes)

If you want to take the hearing audio along for a ride, you can download the MP3 version.

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

Meeting # 55 – Usage-based Billing Practices

February 8, 2011

The second in a series of hearings exploring Usage-based billing included witnesses from independent Internet Service Providers who could face extinction if they are forced to pay higher prices for wholesale broadband access.

Appearing: Rocky Gaudrault, CEO of TekSavvy Solutions Inc., Matt Stein, vice-president of network services for Primus Telecommunications Canada, and Jean-François Mezei, a Montreal-based telecommunications consultant who most recently petitioned the CRTC to repeal its decision. (120 minutes)

You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

Meeting # 56 – Usage-based Billing Practices

February 10, 2011

The third in a series of hearings exploring Usage-based billing included witnesses from Bell Canada, which originally proposed the idea, and additional testimony from independent Internet Service Providers and their trade association, and consumer advocates who oppose the pricing scheme.

Appearing: OpenMedia.ca: Steve Anderson, Founder and National Coordinator. Bell Canada: Jonathan Daniels, Vice-President, Law and Regulatory Affairs; Mirko Bibic, Senior Vice-President, Regulatory and Government Affairs. Shaw Communications Inc.: Jean Brazeau, Senior Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs; Ken Stein, Senior Vice-President, Corporate and Regulatory Affairs. Canadian Association of Internet Providers: Monica Song, Counsel, Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP. MTS Allstream Inc.: Teresa Griffin-Muir, Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs. Union des consommateurs: Anthony Hémond, Lawyer, Analyst, policy and regulations in telecommunications, broadcasting, information highway and privacy. Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc.: Bill Sandiford, President; Christian S. Tacit, Barrister and Solicitor, Counsel. (128 minutes)

You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

During the third day of hearings on usage-based billing, Mirko Bibic from Bell admitted that usage-based billing “prevents [other ISPs] from differentiating their offers from our own.”

That remarkable admission is exactly what independent Internet Service Providers have been arguing since the issue of wholesale usage-based billing was first proposed by Canada’s largest broadband supplier.

Independent providers have managed to carve out a niche supplying primarily residential DSL customers with flat rate usage plans, made possible because of wholesale access provisions assured under Canada’s telecommunications regulations.  As Bell, Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron have systematically imposed usage limits on their residential customers (and occasionally lowered them), consumers seeking better value have found it from smaller ISPs that still offer unlimited access.

As Bell frets over its inability to reap retail revenue from customers departing for other providers, the idea of imposing usage-based billing on wholesale accounts ends that revenue erosion once and for all.  As Bell admits, it forces every provider in Canada to charge the same high prices they do for Internet access.

Canada’s telecom regulator, the CRTC, still cannot define what a “heavy user” is, and neither could Bibic.  But with these pricing schemes, now they don’t have to.  Imposing higher prices with vague promises that the resulting revenue will expand Canada’s broadband networks is eerily familiar to what Time Warner promised residents in several major cities, and then didn’t deliver.

In western New York, the cable company promised a new generation of blazing fast speeds on a world class broadband network, as long as customers agreed to pay up to $150 for unlimited residential service per month.  The old price was $50.  But the cable company provided those upgrades in other cities instead — without usage based pricing.  No wonder residents were furious.  After two weeks of protest, Time Warner threw in the towel.

Two years later, the promised upgrades are finally slated to arrive, long after being made available in most large cities in New York State.

Provider-promised bait and switch broadband upgrades merely represent sucker bets, and no one except the provider wins.

If Bell gets its way, there will be no reason for anyone to do business with an independent service provider.  They’ll be forced to charge increased prices, sometimes even higher than Bell itself.