Back in the 1980s, a group of ragtag rural home satellite dishowners with 10 foot dishes took on the cable television industry for forcing viewers to purchase a set top decoder unit ($395) and paying programming prices higher than what cable viewers paid.  It was all part of an effort by the cable industry, which had an ownership interest in most cable networks back then, to discourage consumers from purchasing satellite dishes to escape ever-increasing cable rates.

Back then, these consumers ran into the same kind of Congress we endure today — quick to listen to industry representatives bearing campaign contributions and slow to respond to the needs and interests of their constituents who elected them.  Indeed, in one infamous example, a call placed to then-New York Senator Al D’Amato resulted in a staff member asking “what company are you with?”

Despite the power and influence of corporate interests protecting their turf, earning enormous profits along the way, many satellite dishowners stayed in the fight, and as cable rate increases continued, major reforms were finally enacted in the 1992 Cable Act which made small satellite dish services like DISH and DirecTV possible.

The struggle for Net Neutrality reminds me of that fight, and the fact it would take time to overcome the special interests and obtain important reforms.  Here at Stop the Cap!, we’ve won more battles than we’ve lost thanks to a small army of consumers who despise Internet Overcharging schemes and are tired of paying outrageous high prices for broadband and other telecommunications services.  Giving up the fight is not an option.

As the 111th Congress draws to a close, efforts to enact Net Neutrality through legislation this year have come to naught.

We were also disappointed by Julius Genachowski, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.  Despite his promising start at the agency, after more than a year watching his performance he has proven to be far better at making speeches than actually implementing policy.  His indecision and dawdling has resulted in a failure to deliver on his promise to reclassify broadband as — what it is — a telecommunications service.  That leaves standing a federal court decision that swept away the Commission’s authority to oversee broadband and stop abusive behavior.  For providers, that’s a dream come true.  Just consider this week’s story that Clear is throttling their customers despite marketing claims they would never do such a thing.

But not to worry, America.  AT&T is “committed to an open Internet,” proclaims the company in a new, feel-good advertisement.  AT&T’s public policy ad claims the company stands with the Obama Administration on delivering universal access to broadband by 2020.

“The future,” the ad claims, “has always been our business.”

The notion is just so warm and fuzzy, it makes me want to adopt puppies and kittens.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Public Policy Commercial.flv[/flv]

AT&T’s newest ad promotes the company’s public policy agenda, which opposes Net Neutrality while still claiming to respect its core principles.  (1 minute)

Of course, AT&T is not so warm and friendly in Washington.  This is the company that dwarfs all other Big Telecoms in spending its customers’ money on hardcore lobbying blitzkriegs on Capitol Hill, drowning Washington in cash and fooling consumers with fake front groups pretending to represent their interests.

Suz, a third-year graduate student at Georgetown University’s Communication, Culture and Technology (CCT) program, noticed some of our earlier coverage on the topic of AT&T and wrote this is a company with a history:

The ad really struck me because of its message and because of the medium. In another class I’m currently taking – The Development of Electronic Media – we just came to the chapter on the development of the telephone and the major influence that AT&T held over that field for the majority of the 20th century. In part because of government regulations supporting the idea of “universal service” and in part because of the desire to connect rural areas with urban areas on the same line of service, the federal powers – though they put a little pressure on after AT&T acquired Western Union with the threat of anti-trust lawsuit – eventually support AT&T’s decompetitive nature by insisting on a compatible network and blocking “duplicative” services, giving AT&T the far-and-away lead in the market.

“The future has always been our business – AT&T.”

Now, there was a lot of history between this “golden age” of monopoly for AT&T and its eventual position today. But what I find striking is the similar-sounding stance to then-CEO Vail’s mission statement of universal service. Their motive may not have been as altruistic as the motto was (one way to attain universal service is to place it in the hands of one provider), but it eventually convinced the government that its powers could be used for good, even at the expense of a competitive (and innovative) marketplace.

Welcome to AT&T v2.0.

AT&T’s dominance in landlines is now at an end, but its influence over the telecommunications medium of the 21st century — the Internet, is just beginning.

The timing could not be more ironic, either.  While AT&T supports the goal for universal broadband service, it is fiercely lobbying to abandon a promise it made a generation earlier to deliver universal landline telephone service.  For that earlier commitment to wire every home, it was granted monopoly status for much of the 20th century.

AT&T has promised to be benevolent if it can remain a completely unregulated mega-player in the broadband industry.  It won’t openly censor opposing viewpoints, but it reserves the right to slow them down to make room for its preferred content partners.  AT&T won’t control what you see or do online, but it does want the right to limit how much of the seeing and doing you can do without overlimit usage fees kicking in.  But no worries, America — AT&T promises full disclosure, so at least you will know you’ve been network managed and overcharged for service.

Jeffrey Burnbaum — writing for the Washington Post — notes AT&T was the gold standard of high powered lobbying and little has changed today:

In the 1980s, AT&T was known for having one of the largest and most skilled corporate offices in Washington. Its representatives were everywhere and well-regarded on Capitol Hill. I remember one encounter between a tall AT&T lobbyist and an elegant McLean matron at a congressional cocktail party. The woman pecked the lobbyist on the cheek and then teased him: “I see you’re wearing your sincere blue suit.” He laughed knowingly — as did the lawmakers standing nearby and with whom he held much sway.

But personal respect wasn’t enough to hold back the tide, either. The telecommunications act of 1996 demonstrated the growing clout of the Baby Bells and AT&T made one last stab at restoring its prowess. In 1998 it hired a former White House deputy chief of staff, James W. Cicconi, to reorganize its Washington presence.

The former aide to George H. W. Bush put together what stands to this day as the model of a contemporary lobbying campaign. Under his guidance, AT&T dispensed tons of campaign cash, formed coalitions with sympathetic-sounding organizations, hired some of the biggest names in downtown Washington as lobbyists and spent millions of dollars on television advertising.

Net Neutrality advocates believe broadband reform is essential in the marketplace duopoly that exists today for most Americans.  With limited options, providers must do more than commit to an open Internet — they must be compelled to deliver it.  The industry’s scare tactics of slowed investment, job losses, and lost innovation are as patently ridiculous — and offensive — as similar claims made by the company over its breakup in the early 1980s.  With the power and influence of lobbying, telecommunications deregulation has allowed them to start putting the pieces back together again.  They are richer and more powerful than ever.

But can they be overcome?  Considering the cable industry deeply underestimated the impact of a consumer outcry over the industry’s abusive practices in the 1980s and early 1990s, the answer remains yes.  Just like the speeds of AT&T’s DSL service, it is just going to take awhile.

Clear made itself unclear about its speed throttle.

Clear, the 4G wireless broadband service backed by Sprint, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable is under fire for selling customers an unlimited use/”no speed limit” service plan that is heavily throttled to as low as 250kbps once customers are deemed “heavy users” by the provider.

Stop the Cap! reader Kevin in Rochester dropped us a note to share his frustration at Clear’s bait and switch marketing that promises one thing and delivers another.

It’s becoming common knowledge – but not common enough – that Clear is throttling their in-home broadband subscribers. For $30 a month, Clear delivers “unlimited 3Mbps” download speed, but after 8-10GB of usage in a month, they cut your speed to 250kbps as a punishment.

Scores of customers share Kevin’s problems, with complaints pouring in on broadband forums and on Clear’s customer support website (which crashed earlier today).  It is not known whether these usage limitations are also imposed on Comcast and Time Warner Cable’s branded 4G wireless services, which are also delivered by Clear’s network.

Remarkably, Clear’s website has marketed its broadband service as free from classic Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles/network management:

Clear's own marketing promises unlimited usage with no speed reductions, unlike those "other" providers, which now also includes Clear itself. (Courtesy: Michael46)

Despite the marketing, Clear’s Rob Lenderman today admitted the company implemented a speed throttle system on Wednesday, Sept. 29 and placed the blame for doing so on peer-to-peer torrent traffic:

Last Wednesday we deployed a new automated algorithm that tries to even the playing field for all users. Essentially we tried to take users that were downloading large amounts of data over a week’s period of time and limit their top speeds during periods of high tower utilization. This system is based on a tower’s current utilization, GB’s downloaded in the past 7 days and current download speeds in the past 15 minutes. it recalculates your max D/L speed every 15 minutes based on these factors. All in there are 48 buckets of max D/L speeds based on these factors.

The expected results of these changes was that a small percentage of users would be slowed down for short periods of time but only during high utilization times on the tower.

Theoretically the very slow speeds would only last for 15 minutes and then readjust based on tower usage and the last 15 minutes of slower speeds.

The reality is that a very small percentage of users are being set at very low D/L speeds for hours at a time.

We are gathering more data as I write this and we are looking at adjustments to the policy so that the connection becomes more usable. Expect further details this week.

One thing I want to stress is that this algorithm does not apply to towers that have a low utilization which is a large percentage of the towers. Since high utilization is usually at night most users that are seeing slower speeds at night would see increases at other times of the day. We realize this is not ideal but using the system for large downloads outside normal usage hours(evening) will allow you to get higher speeds. This rule applies even if you are not being slowed. Fewer users = Higher speeds.

Expect more details in the next few days as we drill into the details and let you know what changes we will be making to make the experience better.

In the short term you can increase the speeds of your experience by reducing the number of GB sized downloads that take place. Our data shows that running a torrent is one of the reasons that people start to experience slower speeds.

[…]I use the word limit when talking about D/L speeds. Not in terms of amount of data you can download. I can assure you this is being handled at a very high level in the organization as some of the experiences some of you are having is not in the spirit of the program. As for using a P2P you will improve speeds if you run them at off peak hours. As tower utilization drops during those hours the algorithm will release more bandwidth and the apps will pick up speed. In addition fewer users will also yield an increase since the algorithm does not affect low utilization tower at all. So you get a double benefit from using off peak hours for large downloads.

We are looking at how to set the speed limits to ensure things like web browsing and youtube are useful even though large downloads may be limited in terms of speed during peak hours.

We are meeting every day to go over new data and determine a longer term solution instead of just throwing new solutions out there without putting some thought into them.

We apologize for this but we need to get it right and not just change for the sake of change.

RobL

Of course, customers promised repeatedly they would receive lightning-fast, unlimited wireless broadband from the company were unimpressed with the company’s argument that artificially slowing their speeds after as little as 20 minutes viewing Hulu or Netflix to 250kbps for several days qualified as ensuring the subscriber experience.  Many customers report Clear’s throttling is hardly limited only to peer to peer torrent traffic.  Online video streaming, in particular, routinely triggers the speed throttle for customers, something Lenderman admitted might be an issue:

We are looking at the impact of the new policy as we speak and will be reevaluating it shortly to determine what changes might need to be made.

The algorithm we use is complicated and is not intended to shut down users that use the service in a normal manner. It was intended to slow down usage from users that have bit torrents, etc running all day long.

For some of the customers that have complained we have researched it in detail and they were not being slowed by the algorithm. We have to make sure that everything is running properly as it makes no sense for us to limit users so much that the service becomes unusable.

We should have more info on what we plan to change in the next few days as we evaluate the data.

Clear becomes just the latest provider poster child for Net Neutrality in the United States.  While there may be reasonable capacity issues at stake on wireless networks not designed to accommodate 24/7 peer to peer traffic, throttling online video is another matter entirely — it’s one of the services Clear has promoted as possible using their higher speed network.  Artificially slowing a network the company sells as not being hampered by such traffic control measures is a classic case of false advertising.

One vocal Clear customer created this avatar

Customers have noticed and have attacked the company for dishonest business practices, bait and switch marketing, and violating their own internal policies.

Stop the Cap! has not seen any reports of company officials attempting to enforce early termination fees for those exiting contracts early.  Kevin noted his service was turned off as he was on the phone with a representative to process the disconnect request.  The representative also demanded Kevin return his modem.

Most who are dropping service are resuming service with their old providers, mostly cable broadband and telephone company DSL providers.  If online forum posts and Twitter tweets are to be believed, the company is losing hundreds of customers per day over their Internet Overcharging scheme.

Most likely, Clear has turned to vendors like Sandvine for “usage management” equipment that can automatically slow service for those who actually utilize the service they pay to receive.

“It is no longer about the broadband-connected home but about the broadband-connected individual,” said Tom Donnelly, EVP marketing and sales, Sandvine. “Service providers worldwide are looking for tools that enable their subscribers to stay within their service plans regardless of when, where or how they connect to the network.”

Sandvine’s products detect network conditions that trigger policies within the network to help service providers control subscribers’ Internet experience.  The latest version integrates with 3G and 4G networks to throttle speeds based on time of use or volume of data transferred.  A provider sets the parameters and the “network management” solution does the rest, automatically.

Stop the Cap! intends to monitor this situation carefully over the coming days to learn what the company intends to do with its network management scheme.  If they continue to use it, we will do our part and file a formal complaint against Clear with New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for false advertising and misleading business practices.

It is only a matter of time before a law firm begins a class action against the company for similar reasons.  Stop the Cap! encourages Clear customers to use the company’s forum to vocally demand an end to all Internet Overcharging schemes or else you will take your business elsewhere.  You should also demand full credit for the days you experience artificially slowed speeds, and please let us know if you are asked to pay any early termination fee for exiting a Clear term contract.

The searchlight is looking for cash.

A phone company-backed research group has awarded Verizon the “Top Provider among Market Leaders for multi-protocol label switching and Carrier Ethernet services,” with two 2010 Nemertes PilotHouse Awards. This is the second time Verizon Business has received top honors for Market Leaders in both of these categories since the awards program debuted in 2008.

Nemertes Research, which depends on industry money to conduct research, is behind the awards.  Nemertes, backed by the phone industry-funded Internet Innovation Alliance, is the same group that regularly issues research reports predicting an imminent global “brown-out” of the Internet because of excessive broadband traffic.  In turn, those reports are used to lobby for network management policies that violate Net Neutrality and fuel calls for Internet Overcharging schemes.

Verizon’s press release spends several paragraphs on the defensive, going out of its way to suggest this particular award was not another phoneybaloney recognition created out of thin air with telco money:

“This recognition is particularly meaningful because the rankings are based 100 percent on the views and experiences of actual users, making PilotHouse a truly unique industry award,” said Anthony Recine, vice president of networking and communications solutions for Verizon Business.

[…]PilotHouse Awards are based 100% on the experiences of IT-decision makers. No vendors sponsor this research.

Nemertes itself spends plenty of time trying to cope with skepticism on its own website, but manages to expose another money trail along the way (underlining ours):

6) Is this a “pay-to-play” awards program?

No. Nemertes publishes aggregate and comparative data for all vendors for which we receive a total number of ratings equal to at least 10% of the total pool of ratings. As part of the survey, Nemertes provides a list of vendors derived from extensive research and analysis. There is also another category to allow participants to write in any provider in any category.

9) Can vendors promote the awards?

Yes. After completion of the award reports, Nemertes will notify winners and offer the option of buying award packages that include reprint rights, logo licensing, webinars, issue papers, and award dinner tickets. Buying award packages have no bearing on the results of the PilotHouse awards.

Among the big winners are AT&T, Cisco (the biggest driver of the “exaflood” theory around), Verizon, and Qwest.

What remains unsaid is who pays Nemertes to run an awards program and where the research firm would be without large telecommunications companies purchasing “research” they can safely assume will always find in their favor.

Nemertes’s slogan is “Independence, Integrity, Insight.”  Research groups that truly represent those ideals need not emphasize them because they are embodied in the quality of the research, the firewall that keeps industry money from tainting the findings, and full disclosure of who is paying for what.

Stage two of the nightmare is billing problems, and one West Virginia family discovered a phone bill they couldn't imagine possible.

Frontier Communications’ performance in West Virginia is starting to resemble northern New England’s never ending nightmare with FairPoint, the phone company that couldn’t manage landline service for customers in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont and ended up in bankruptcy.  Things have gotten so bad, Frontier Communications now earns an “F” rating from the Better Business Bureau, called out specifically for failing to respond to complaints filed against the provider, failure to resolve the complaints they did acknowledge, and government action taken against the company for deceptive business practices.

Stop the Cap! reader Ralph in West Virginia drops us a line to share the latest progress the company is making in his part of West Virginia, or rather the lack thereof, starting with his own personal story:

The afternoon of  Thursday Sep. 2nd, our phones were out of order for awhile but were working by 4pm.  The DSL was still out so I waited to see if they’d get it fixed later that evening.  When it was still out Friday afternoon, I called to report it and asked if they had a reported outage for the area.  Their answer was no, and they proceeded to ask me to reset the modem and perform some additional diagnostic testing.

That didn’t “fix” it so they filed a trouble ticket and told me a technician would be out to check the outside wiring and, if needed, give me a new modem.  Frontier never showed up, so I called again and was left on hold for 30 of the 35 minutes that phone call lasted. I was finally told that it was a known outage affecting 12 people in the area.  No repairs were made on Sunday so I called on Monday and was told the problem now affected 16 people and they had no idea when it would be fixed.  It was finally fixed five days after initially reporting the outage, and nobody bothered to explain why it took so long.  I was later bemused to find an article in the weekly county paper that noted the outage was now up to impacting 20 people.

In your earlier report about Frontier, a spokesman for the company claimed the company follows a protocol about calling customers with service problems to see if the issues were resolved, but that call didn’t come until Sep. 8th, a full 24 hours after our DSL service was restored.  Keep up the good work, maybe Frontier and other providers will realize that the system is broken and we do want and need high speed Internet.

Ralph is not alone in having trouble with Frontier.  Just as Stop the Cap! reported with FairPoint’s failure in New England, service problems are just the beginning of the “fun” for transitioned customers.  Billing problems come next, and Frontier followed through in spades for one West Virginia family.

Meet Johna and Paul Snatchko, who are being billed $671.45 for dial-up Internet service calls by Frontier.  Not only did Frontier fail to deliver broadband service to the northwestern part of the state, now the Snatchko family has had to quit using dial-up Internet as well because the Snatchko’s claim Frontier made accessing the service a long distance call.

“When we switched from Verizon to Frontier, they said nothing will change,” Paul told WTOV News. “Well, there’s change.”

Despite selling the Snatchko family “unlimited long distance” service, Frontier still charged every call to their ISP at the regular long distance rate.  Why use dial-up in the first place?

“In this part of West Virginia, you’re very limited in your service,” Paul explained. “Dial-up is it for us. We’ve tried everything else. The only thing we could get was dial-up.”

The family also endured another Frontier specialty — the constantly changing promotional offers that are poorly explained by the company’s customer service representatives.

“They said it doesn’t include their package deal with the computer,” Johnna said, referring to a common Frontier promotion for a free netbook in return for a bundled package of services on a two year contract. “The first couple months it did and now it doesn’t include it.”

Frontier Communications earned an "F" rating from the Better Business Bureau

Frontier’s spokesman for the area, Bill Moon, made yet another TV appearance to try and explain it all away.

“There are billing problems that can happen anytime you have a switch over like that,” he told WTOV. “It’s probably a simple mistake on this particular customer’s bill, something that can be rectified pretty easy.”

Apparently not. Frontier told the family they have received two credits already and that is the last time the company is willing to provide them.

Despite the increasing frequency and seriousness of complaints now becoming a staple on the nightly news, Moon said incidents like this are rare.  He told the station out of more than 60,000 lines of service, they’ve had about 10 problems at most.

West Virginians are also waking up to the realization that Frontier’s promised “fiber upgrades” are little more than bait and switch, and they’ll never be able to directly access the fiber the company is installing.  As Stop the Cap! has reported previously, Frontier’s residential customers are more likely to encounter beneficial fiber in their morning breakfast cereal than from Frontier Communications.

The Charleston media is abuzz about the fact taxpayers are footing the bill for a $40 million fiber network that the company will own free and clear, and charge top dollar prices to access.  Citynet, one of Frontier’s competitors, blew the whistle over Frontier’s much-ballyhooed fiber expansion that is actually intended to serve public institutions, wholesale customers, and Frontier’s “middle-mile” network — not directly benefit consumers:

[…]Once Frontier spends the $40 million of taxpayer money to expand its network, it will be the sole owner of that network and the State will have no ownership rights. Thus, Frontier’s monopoly in the State of West Virginia will have been financed with taxpayer money.

Frontier will then sell services to state entities such as schools and government offices at the existing exorbitant prices. Those prices will never decrease, because no competitor can afford to spend $40 million or more of its own capital to build out its network.

Citynet, however, has provided the state with a plan for the expenditure of the taxpayer money that will expand broadband access in the state while at the same time lowering the cost of broadband access by 70 percent to 90 percent.

It is true that competitors, like Citynet, have existing contracts with Frontier for access to fiber facilities, but given that Frontier’s new network will be built with your money, it is Citynet’s position that those facilities should be made available to competitors at a nominal cost so that competitors can make their services available to the public at large at much lower prices.

Frontier has flatly refused Citynet’s proposal and intends to require competitors to pay inflated prices for access to fiber facilities it built for free.

As currently structured, the state’s plan for expanding broadband will do nothing more than expand Frontier’s monopoly, and will not address the fundamental problem of the high cost of broadband access.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTOV Steubenville Speaking Too Soon – Frontier’s Customers Still Complaining 9-15 and 9-28-10.flv[/flv]

WTOV-TV thought Frontier’s problems were behind them when they ran the first of two stories about the company Sep. 15th.  But then they met the Snatchko family and learned they spoke too soon.  Last night, they tried to determine how a West Virginia family could be charged nearly $700 for dial-up Internet service.  (4 minutes)