Phillip Dampier

Lobbyists, corporate executives, and several interest groups are busy lobbying the newest additions to the Federal Communications Commission in an all-out effort to stop Net Neutrality.

The Hill newspaper today reports Mignon Clyburn, daughter of House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), is particularly under pressure to reject Net Neutrality.  The Hill reports industry lobbyists believe that if her father is amenable to their position, his daughter might also be.  To date, several hundred letters from minority groups and organizations, many opposed to Net Neutrality, have been filed with the FCC.

After reviewing dozens of those letters, it’s readily apparent many are the fruits of AT&T and Verizon lobbying labor, because several adopt both companies’ anti-Net Neutrality talking points, often word for word.

Even the newest Republican commissioner, Meredith Attwell Baker, is under a lobbying assault.

The thinking on K Street is that Baker’s views on net neutrality may not be set. Lobbyists and corporate executives have sought out Baker before the FCC votes on a final rule sometime next year.

“They are trying to get in there and remind her where she comes from to shore up her vote for the anti-net neutrality camp,” said one lobbyist working on the issue.

While the special interest blitz attempts to kill Net Neutrality, one pro-Net Neutrality advocate got into a dispute with some of the minority interest groups opposing Net Neutrality, which was gleefully covered by the broadband industry trade press. Public Knowledge got a bit too close to a nerve of several of these groups who put their logos on a letter sent to the FCC opposing Net Neutrality.  The letter represents the groups’ concerns that broadband for many in America is simply not available, especially for the economically disadvantaged.  They’ve been swayed by industry propaganda to characterize Net Neutrality as a threat to addressing the digital divide by making service ultimately even more expensive.  Some of those groups fired back against Public Knowledge, offended by some of the language used on their blog they felt suggested minority groups were naive and possibly even “selling out” the people they represent.  A few public exchanges later led to an apology from Public Knowledge if feelings were hurt and a plea from Free Press to put aside some of the personal disputes and rhetoric and argue the merits of the issue pro or con.

We agree with Free Press that personality disputes and pointless name calling don’t work and serve only to distract from the issues at hand. These groups advocating against Net Neutrality should be open to receiving additional information that doesn’t come from the broadband industry, particularly arguments that debunk those fear-mongering industry talking points.  Perhaps those groups will be amenable to changing their position once they gather additional facts.

But we also feel the first rule of politics must always be to “follow the money” and that is true for non-profits, for-profits, and government interests.  There must be full disclosure of the financial support and board membership of all of the groups claiming to represent consumer and minority interests.  Consumers, and more importantly members of the groups themselves, deserve to know where the money is coming from and if their boards have members working for or with the telecommunications industry or its friends.

For example, in our own research of the background of 100+ members of Broadband for America, we found instances of telecommunications industry involvement in virtually every single group.  If one chooses to believe that is a coincidence and still feels comfortable with that organization, so be it.  However, if one is concerned to learn that in several cases those ties were being scrubbed from interest groups’ websites, or were not openly disclosed to members, learning about that could be a cause of concern.  People should have the right to make an informed decision.  Some of the groups complaining about Public Knowledge are also members of Broadband for America and have telecommunications industry money backing them.  There is nothing wrong, in my judgment, in making sure that information is out there for readers to consider.

Be aware that while pro-Net Neutrality groups ring their hands over potentially offending one another, opponents are wasting no time mass mailing anti-Net Neutrality correspondence to the FCC.  Let’s remember our first priority is to fight for Net Neutrality.  If a group is offended, send them flowers, apologize quickly if you must, and be done with it.  Don’t entertain the trade press.

Navarrow Wright on BlackWeb 2.0 called proponents of Net Neutrality “digital elites” and then condensed many of the industry talking points that are common to many of the anti-Net Neutrality letters heading to the FCC:

The risk that a regressive pricing mandate that net neutrality rules could impose will shift online costs to the poor is real.

The risk that over-regulation will depress deployment and access is real.

The risk that restrictions on network management will reduce the quality and reliability of Internet service for light users — students, the poor on fixed incomes, the elderly, and community organizers who rely on Internet access to reach their communities – is real.

Wright doesn’t bother to provide any evidence to back up these claims.  Underlining the word real does not make it reality.

We recognize these talking points from the broadband industry’s lobbying efforts against Net Neutrality.  The industry scare tactic about raised prices is exactly the same one they use to justify Internet Overcharging schemes like forced consumption billing and usage caps, despite earning healthy profits and enjoying a decline in their traffic costs.  Read the financial reports from the major players about broadband profits for yourself.  Don’t take our word for it.

Net Neutrality simply demands the status quo — open and equal access to everyone, including the economically disadvantaged Wright is concerned about.  If Wright is concerned about the cost of broadband services for the economically disadvantaged, giving the providers the right to monetize content delivery in new ways, it will lead to even higher prices than we cope with today.

Industry rate hikes come in spite of Net Neutrality, and we call on Wright to join our effort to demand increased competition so these kinds of price increases become untenable.  Time Warner Cable, the nation’s second largest provider, is busily increasing prices for Road Runner service right now in several regions, even without the “imminent threat” of Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is hardly “over regulation,” and the empty rhetoric about it depressing investment, deployment, and access has been made every time this industry has faced the prospect of some oversight.  Wright should remember the industry used the same arguments to resist universal wiring requirements made in franchise agreements to guarantee that income challenged neighborhoods had the same access to cable and telephone broadband services as wealthy suburbs.  In their fight to obtain quick and simple statewide video franchising, they argued that without it, it would discourage investment, deployment, and access to competition.  Regulating rates?  Same argument.  The Discovery Institute, which has produced suspect studies on demand for the industry, paid for by the industry, provides an excellent example of “we’ve heard this song before” in comments they made to the FCC back in 2006 to try and reform cable franchising:

V. LEVEL-PLAYING-FIELD REQUIREMENTS ARE ANTICOMPETITIVE

Build-out requirements were an appropriate quid pro quo for the telephone, cable and wireless companies who received an exclusive franchise. An exclusive franchise ensured the viability of average pricing by eliminating the risk of cherry-picking by a competitive entrant, and allowed providers to serve the most profitable customers first who could then, in turn, subsidize the cost of serving everyone else.

Competitive entrants already have an incentive to expand their networks: They must produce consistent revenue gains, and the cost of adding additional users declines as a network grows. But unless flexibly and intelligently applied, a build-out requirement threatens the entire undertaking by creating the possibility that the initial investment will be effectively lost if, for whatever reason, it just isn’t possible to meet the deadline. The evidence that cities possess the inclination to perform this thoughtful and delicate task is entirely conjectural.

Build-out is typically not required of competitive entrants, because it imposes costs that may not be recoverable in a competitive market. Exceptions are Personal Communications Service (PCS) providers and Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs). However, these examples are clearly distinguishable. As the Commission has noted in another context, the grant of a PCS license confers on the licensee an exclusive right to use a designated portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. In that decision, the Commission rejected a Texas build-out requirement applicable to competitive entrants in the local exchange market.

ETCs are required to provide service and advertise their rates throughout the area for which they seek Universal Service support, but an ETC has the right to resell another carrier’s services. There is no suggestion in the current proceeding that telephone companies seeking to offer video services should have the right to resell the services of the incumbent cable operator, nor should there be. However, in view of the fact that telephone companies cannot be assured of the capital needed to build out their advanced services networks, a resale requirement would probably be the only practical way ensure that a competitive entrant could serve every household.

Build-out is not the same thing as redlining. Redlining is illegal, but by its terms, 47 U.S.C. 621(a)(4)(A) does not require build-out. It merely imposes a reasonableness requirement on the amount of time locally-enacted build-out requirements provide for the competitive entrant to serve every household. There is no Congressional mandate for build-out.

Since cable operators are not required to offer voice services to every household, it is not clear why telephone companies should be required to offer video services throughout their service area. There is no way to predict whether competitive entrants will have access to sufficient capital or be able to gain enough market share to make build-out requirements objectively reasonable. These risk factors suggest that build-out requirements would be anticompetitive.

It is also utter nonsense to suggest network management restrictions will reduce the quality and reliability of Internet service for light users.  In fact, the industry’s proposed “light user” solution is a consumption billing scheme that includes usage allowances and limits, overlimit penalties for exceeding them, and consumers forced into limited use plans, often for little or no savings over existing under-marketed “lite” plans.

Most providers currently tier broadband based on speed.  If a consumer wants to get “light service,” they can purchase a discounted lower speed package perfectly adequate for most web use, and never have to worry about how much they choose to use it.  They want to continue offering speed tiers, but also limit customers’ use of their accounts, giving them a paltry usage allowance and then subjecting them to steep penalties for exceeding it.  Residents in Rochester, New York fought back against two such schemes advocated by Time Warner Cable and Frontier Communications, the local phone company.  It is under the guise of “network management” that these Internet Overcharging schemes were born.  A word to the wise – this price gouging hurts the economically disadvantaged far more than wealthy suburbanites.

I also point Wright’s attention to the broadband situation in Canada, which has adopted the viewpoint of our provider friends.  There, Internet usage is limited by allowances, with fees of $1-5 per gigabyte for exceeding them.  Net Neutrality is not protected, and certain Internet services are “network managed” with speed throttles, reducing their speed by 90% or more, making their use untenable.  Yet, Canadian broadband dropped in global broadband rankings, service providers increased prices anyway, and the digital divide Wright is worried about has not been addressed.  In fact, it’s arguably worse, because the industry won efforts to also limit and ration wholesale broadband access used by independent service providers to create competitive, lower-priced alternatives.

Does that make Wright stupid or a “sell-out?”  Of course not.  It means we have a lot of information to share with Mr. Wright and others like him.  As consumers ourselves, we believe in getting affordable broadband access to disadvantaged communities, and support Universal Service Fund reform and appropriate stimulus funding, or providing municipally built networks to introduce needed competition to get quality, affordable broadband service into urban and rural homes that are woefully underserved.  The industry advocated “don’t regulate us” approach has been in place since the 1990s and has not come close to solving the problem.

It’s our view broadband service is rapidly becoming as important as water, gas and electric, and telephone service, and must be provided to every American that wants a connection, at an affordable price.  When private providers won’t do that, it’s time to follow the same path we took to assure electrification of this country decades earlier, with public projects to get the job done.

We think every person should check out these issues for themselves.  As a consumer, confronting Internet Overcharging schemes was what got this site started, and once I examined the facts about the profitable state of broadband, and the quest to make it even more profitable at consumer expense, I got angry and involved.  That doesn’t make me an “elitist.”  It makes me an informed and involved citizen.

We have always told providers this isn’t personal and we respect the work done by the employees to serve their customers.  Most of us are customers ourselves.  We will debate policy matters and advocate for our position, and try and bring supporting evidence to the table, and let the best argument win.  Along the way, disclosing who represents who and where they money comes from is part of that debate.

It will remain our policy to expose industry connections in organizations that purport to advocate for consumer interests, particularly when those connections are not routinely disclosed.  Consumers have a right to know whether the industry is writing checks to ostensibly independent groups, or have executives seated on their governing boards, potentially influencing their public policy positions.  To not provide this needed information would sell out our readers, and not living up to the standards we set for ourselves.

For the record, Stop the Cap! has zero industry money backing us.  We are 100% consumer-funded and have no involvement in any online business or telecommunications company.

Bray Cary, Host of Decision Makers

A network of West Virginia television stations spent 20 minutes this past Sunday airing a puff piece that could have been a video press release straight out of Frontier’s public relations department.  Decision Makers, a self-described “agenda setting” public affairs program ostensibly puts important people on the “hot seat” to answer “tough questions about where West Virginia is heading and how it will get there.”

Hardball this was not. Host Bray Cary, who also happens to serve as president and CEO of the television station group, presided over a one-sided softball tournament for Ken Arndt, Frontier’s new Southeast region chief in a 20 minute interview where the hardest question was likely posed off camera – ‘where would you like to do lunch?’

Decision Makers is seen across West Virginia on Cary’s statewide network of television stations — WOWK in Charleston-Huntington, WBOY in Clarksburg-Morgantown, WTRF in Wheeling and WVNS in Beckley-Bluefield.

The appearance of Arndt on the program comes the same week Frontier reportedly committed to purchasing significant advertising time on the stations, leading a Stop the Cap! reader who informed us about the program to ponder whether this Fluff-Fest was part of the ad deal.

Viewers on the public comment section for the show were unimpressed.

“I can’t believe Mr. Cary didn’t ask the Frontier guy any hard questions. It was like a 20 minute commercial for Frontier, is that what you get for buying advertising with the station,” asked one.  “I believe that we would all like to hear and understand Frontier’s direct response to challenging questions from an involved, and knowledgeable speaker. We need to hear more then a branding speech,” said another.

The interview was loaded with misleading and occasionally false statements, often coming from the program host, who served as presiding cheerleader.  You can watch the program’s two segments, and then take a look at our reality check (and if an all-consumer volunteer website can manage this, why can’t Mr. Cary?)

[Video No Longer Available]

Now that you’ve watched, let’s review the misleading statements, some made by Arndt, some by the host:

“You guys are serving 35% of West Virginia – that’s a third of the phones.”

Frontier may serve 35% of the landmass of West Virginia, but not 35% of the population, which is a very important distinction.  Verizon has the overwhelming majority of customers in the state, not the tw0-thirds this statement suggests.

“I guess the only guys fighting you all right now are the Communications Workers of America union workers.”

Ken Arndt - Frontier Communications

That, along with other dismissive comments made by Cary represent just how biased his interview was.  In many communities, citizens, businesses, utility commission staff, and yes – company workers are fighting this deal, because it’s bad news for every community facing a Frontier takeover.  Of course, Cary doesn’t have anyone on his program to refute his guest (or him for that matter.)

“From a timelime perspective, and we’re actually finishing our [broadband expansion] engineering plan right now — by December 15th, my expectation is within the first 18 months we will make a substantial increase raising that 60% (of Verizon broadband penetration) exponentially and making a large investment and bringing in the individuals — the engineering and construction talent to be able to get it done as quickly as possible.”

Frontier anticipates cutting $500 million in costs per year if the deal consummates, according to Bloomberg News. Job cuts at both Frontier and Verizon will create some of that savings, according to Maggie Wilderotter, Frontier’s CEO.  Customer service and field-technician jobs won’t be eliminated, she claims, but with a need for that level of cost savings, combined with the enormous debt Frontier will assume, where the resources to accomplish this expansion will come from is not explained.

Frontier’s broadband expansion targets so-called “middle-mile” expansion.  That was precisely what was done in Rochester.  Fiber optics are used to connect various central offices and some remote network extenders (known as DSLAMs) to try and extend DSL service into more distant areas further away from the central office.  DSL speed is highly dependent on distance.  The further away you get, the lower the speed you can obtain.  Frontier plans to install limited amounts of fiber linking their offices in hopes of providing DSL service in areas that do not have access to it currently.  Unfortunately, every indication is that Frontier’s DSL in most parts of West Virginia will provide a maximum of 3Mbps, if you’re lucky.  In communities like Rochester, DSL service is marketed at 10Mbps, but as I’ve experienced myself, that speed really turned out to be 3.1Mbps living less than one-half mile from the city line.

To many consumers, hearing talk about fiber optics may leave the impression they’ll have this type of connection in their home or business.  That’s highly unlikely.  Frontier fiber serves their own internal network.  Verizon FiOS serves you directly on a fiber optic cable.

‘In West Virginia in 2007 Frontier lost 2.7% of our access lines.  In Verizon’s footprint they lost 6.7%.  In 2008, Frontier’s lost just 2% while Verizon increased [their loss] to over 8%.  Frontier has put together unique packages that continually add value to landlines.  It’s through [Frontier’s] packaging, providing unique services and unique technologies [that the company limits losses].’

Frontier is in the enviable position of focusing on rural markets long bypassed by the phone company’s biggest threats: cable and wireless competition.  Verizon is not.  The real reason for the dramatic difference in line loss is that Frontier customers often have no other choices for telecommunications services.  In West Virginia, cable does not serve many rural communities, so there is no “digital phone” competition to worry about.  Mobile phones in the most mountainous regions of the state can offer problematic service if it’s the only phone you have.  Verizon, which does face relentless cable television competition, pays the price in greater line loss.  Rural West Virginia has a much higher population of elderly residents, who are usually the least likely to drop traditional phone service.  In fact, no state has a higher population of the rural elderly except Florida.

These factors afford Frontier more protection from line loss, not the so-called “unique services and unique technologies” the company only speaks about generally.

Arndt also responds to a question about Frontier’s plans for fiber and other forms of “telco-TV” such as that provided by Verizon FiOS.  After noting the company does plan to move forward on an extremely limited basis by finishing FiOS projects already under construction, Arndt signals Frontier believes its status as a simple reseller of DISH satellite service somehow provides a superior solution to telephone company provided television.

Not really.

Who needs Frontier to sign up for DISH?  Customers can sign up directly themselves.  The advantage of “telco TV” really comes from the construction of the network to support it.  Both AT&T and Verizon have built television-ready networks which not only compete with cable, but also give their customers more and better broadband choices that Frontier cannot and will not offer consumers.  Frontier tries to valiantly spin its copper cable future by saying satellite television offers a better service, but in reality, being a DISH Network reseller hardly is in the same class as FiOS or U-verse.

Residents in the affected areas need to consider whether they are tying themselves to a company that believes copper wire slow speed DSL is good enough for now and into the indefinite future, has no plans to directly compete with cable and other providers in delivering a wired telephone company cable service, will not build FiOS-like fiber optic networks in areas that one day could have been wired by Verizon, and will live with a company content with delivering “ubiquity” of service across all of its service areas, which in reality means large communities will suffer with lowest common denominator service, and rural communities will be lucky to get “good enough for you” broadband.

Arndt’s comments about fiber connectivity in selected portions of their service area refer mostly to multi-dwelling units and new housing developments where service was provided more cost effectively through a shared fiber connection.  That’s not FiOS either.

Color us unexcited about the prospect of Frontier’s ‘unique cable television via broadband service’ Arndt hints at.  That is almost certainly the new DISH set top box that can connect to your Frontier DSL service to stream on-demand television shows.  With Frontier’s 5GB Acceptable Use Policy for broadband, don’t expect to watch too much if and when they enforce the limit.

Among the most shameful segments of the 20 minute video press release Cary presides over is in the second half, when he asks and answers his own questions, spun in Frontier’s direction, about their ability to digest Verizon’s operations that dramatically dwarf Frontier’s current size and scope.  He’s even done “his research,” which suspiciously appears to be surfing through Frontier’s own talking points from their website and public relations efforts.  As far as Cary is concerned, Wall Street says they “like” the deal, and opposition to it is “a lot of noise.”

Arndt responds that the opposition to the deal comes because of FairPoint Communications, which he says failed because of the complexities of integrating their billing systems.  As Stop the Cap! readers already know, FairPoint’s troubles went well beyond computer integration problems.  Arndt’s reasoning is akin to saying New Orleans drowned in Hurricane Katrina because a storm sewer up the street was clogged.  More than 20 news reports on this site alone document the entire sordid story.  On every level, FairPoint failed New England for a range of reasons:

1. The enormous debt FairPoint was saddled with made it difficult for the company to spend the money necessary to maintain and grow their network and survive an economic downturn.  Frontier will also take on enormous debt during a challenging economy and claims it will spend millions to expand broadband service into rural areas where fewer potential customers mean a longer Return On Investment;
2. FairPoint’s acquisition of Verizon New England involved more customers than FairPoint served nationwide before the buyout.  The exact same thing is true of Frontier in this deal;
3. FairPoint’s earlier acquisitions were small, independent phone companies run with limited bureaucracy.  Verizon, and its predecessor Bell System businesses, have done things their own way for decades, making theoretical transitions doable on paper and chaotic in reality.  The exact same scenario exists with Frontier’s purchase of Verizon service areas;
4. Poor service, unresponsive and overwhelmed customer service centers, insufficient investment, and broken promises plagued FairPoint’s New England adventure from day one.  Frontier risks repeating FairPoint’s mistakes, putting customers with no other options for telecommunications service at serious risk.

Cary doesn’t have the insight or the interest in digging down into Arndt’s claims.  Maybe he forgot.  As far as Cary is concerned, everyone in West Virginia should just get familiar with the Frontier name.

Of course, actual consumers aren’t invited on Decision Makers.  Nor are any groups opposed to the deal.  But West Virginians and others can be “decision makers” and choose a different path for their telecommunications future.  They can get on the phone and call their state representatives and tell them to oppose the deal.  They can also contact the state utility commission and file their own comments telling them this deal isn’t worth the risk — three bankruptcies out of three earlier deals.

Even when playing this kind of softball, three strikes should mean you are out.

America's Broadband Emergency Plan Allows Up to Three Cat-Chasing-Laser-Pointer videos per day

The mainstream media loves a scare story.  Suggestions that a national H1N1 pandemic could bring the Internet as we know it to its knees is a surefire way to get plenty of attention.

The Chicago Tribune, among others, reports that a nationwide outbreak of virus forcing 40% of American workers to remain housebound could result in too many people sitting at home watching Hulu, bringing the entire Internet to a screeching halt.

The answer? Shut down video streaming sites and throttle users during national emergencies.

Of course, even more interesting is what never turns up in these kinds of stories — the news behind the sensationalist headlines.

The report on which this story is based comes courtesy of the General Accounting Office.  The GAO doesn’t simply issue reports willy-nilly.  A member or members of Congress specifically request the government office to research and report back on the issues that concern them.  In this instance, the report comes at the request of:

• Rep. Henry Waxman
• Rep. John D. Dingell
• Rep. Joe Barton
• Rep. Barney Frank
• Rep. Bennie G. Thompson
• Rep. Rick Boucher
• Rep. Cliff Stearns
• Rep. Edward J. Markey

The congressmen weren’t worrying exclusively about your broadband interests.  The GAO notes the study came from concern that such a pandemic could impact the financial services sector (the people that brought you the near-Depression of 2008-09).  The Wall Street crowd could be left without broadband while recovering from flu, and that simply wouldn’t do.

“Concerns exist that a more severe pandemic outbreak than 2009’s could cause large numbers of people staying home to increase their Internet use and overwhelm Internet providers’ network capacities. Such network congestion could prevent staff from broker-dealers and other securities market participants from teleworking during a pandemic. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for ensuring that critical telecommunications infrastructure is protected. GAO was asked to examine a pandemic’s impact on Internet congestion and what actions can be and are being taken to address it, the adequacy of securities market organizations’ pandemic plans, and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) oversight of these efforts,” the report states.

Putting aside my personal desire that a little less broadband for deal-making, bailout-demanding “kings of the world” might not be a bad idea, the GAO’s report concludes what we already know — the business model of residential broadband is based on sharing connections and when too many people stay home and use them, it’s slow and doesn’t work well.

Providers do not build networks to handle 100 percent of the total traffic that could be generated because users are neither active on the network all at the same time, nor are they sending maximum traffic at all times. Instead, providers use statistical models based upon past users’ patterns and projected growth to estimate the likely peak load of traffic that could occur and then design and build networks based on the results of the statistical model to accommodate at least this level. According to one provider, this engineering method serves to optimize available capacity for all users. For example, under a cable architecture, 200 to 500 individual cable modems may be connected to a provider’s CMTS, depending on average usage in an area. Although each of these individual modems may be capable of receiving up to 7 or 8 megabits per second (Mbps) of incoming information, the CMTS can transmit a maximum of only about 38 Mbps. Providers’ staff told us that building the residential parts of networks to be capable of handling 100 percent of the traffic that all users could potentially generate would be prohibitively expensive.

In other words, guess your customer demand correctly and 200-500 homes can all share one 38Mbps connection.  Guess incorrectly, or put off expanding that network to meet the anticipated demands because your company wants to collect “cost savings” from reduced investment, and everyone’s connection slows down, especially at peak times.

One way to dramatically boost capacity for cable operators is to bond multiple channels of broadband service together, using the latest DOCSIS 3 standard.  It provides cable operators with increased flexibility to meet growing demands on their network without spending top dollar on wholesale infrastructure upgrades.  Many operators are already reaping the rewards this upgrade provides, by charging customers higher prices for higher speed service.  But it also makes network management easier without inconveniencing existing customers with slowdowns during peak usage.

The GAO didn’t need 77 pages to produce a report that concludes broadband usage skyrockets when people are at home.  Just watching holiday shopping traffic online spike during deal days like “Cyber Monday,” after Thanksgiving would illustrate that.  Should 40 percent of Americans stay home from work, instead of browsing the Internet from their work machines, they’ll be doing it from home.  That moves the bottleneck from commercial broadband accounts to residential broadband networks.

The GAO says such congestion could create all sorts of problems for the financial services sector, slowing down their broadband access.

Providers’ options for addressing expected pandemic-related Internet congestion include providing extra capacity, using network management controls, installing direct lines to organizations, temporarily reducing the maximum transmission rate, and shutting down some Internet sites. Each of these methods is limited either by technical difficulties or questions of authority. In the normal course of business, providers attempt to address congestion in particular neighborhoods by building out additional infrastructure—for example, by adding new or expanding lines and cables. Internet provider staff told us that providers determine how much to invest in expanding network infrastructure based on business expectations. If they determine that a demand for increased capacity exists that can profitably be met, they may choose to invest to increase network capacity in large increments using a variety of methods such as replacing old equipment and increasing the number of devices serving particular neighborhoods. Providers will not attempt to increase network capacity to meet the increased demand resulting from a pandemic, as no one knows when a pandemic outbreak is likely to occur or which neighborhoods would experience congestion. Staff at Internet providers whom we interviewed said they monitor capacity usage constantly and try to run their networks between 40 and 80 percent capacity at peak hours. They added that in the normal course of business, their companies begin the process to expand capacity when a certain utilization threshold is reached, generally 70 to 80 percent of full capacity over a sustained period of time at peak hours.

However, during a pandemic, providers are not likely to be able to address congestion by physically expanding capacity in residential neighborhoods for several reasons. First, building out infrastructure can be very costly and takes time to complete. For example, one provider we spoke with said that it had spent billions of dollars building out infrastructure across the nation over time, and adding capacity to large areas quickly is likely not possible. Second, another provider told us that increasing network capacity requires the physical presence of technicians and advance planning, including preordering the necessary equipment from suppliers or manufacturers. The process can take anywhere from 6 to 8 weeks from the time the order is placed to actual installation. According to this provider, a major constraint to increasing capacity is the number of technicians the firm has available to install the equipment. In addition to the cost and time associated with expanding capacity, during a pandemic outbreak providers may also experience high absenteeism due to staff illnesses, and thus might not have enough staff to upgrade network capacities. Providers said they would, out of necessity, refrain from provisioning new residential services if their staff were reduced significantly during a pandemic. Instead, they would focus on ensuring services for the federal government priority communication programs and performing network management techniques to re-route traffic around congested areas in regional networks or the national backbone. However, these activities would likely not relieve congestion in the residential Internet access networks.

It’s clear some broadband providers are not willing to change their business models to redefine congestion from measurements taken during peak usage when speeds slow, to those that anticipate and tolerate traffic spikes.  That means making due with what broadband providers are delivering today and developing technical and legal means to ration, traffic shape, or simply cut access to high bandwidth traffic during ‘appropriate emergencies.’  Right on cue, the high bandwidth barrage of self-serving provider talking points are on display in the report:

Providers identified one technically feasible alternative that has the potential to reduce Internet congestion during a pandemic, but raised concerns that it could violate customer service agreements and thus would require a directive from the government to implement. Although providers cannot identify users at the computer level to manage traffic from that point, two providers stated that if the residential Internet access network in a particular neighborhood was experiencing congestion, a provider could attempt to reduce congestion by reducing the amount of traffic that each user could send to and receive from his or her network. Such a reduction would require adjusting the configuration file within each customer’s modem to temporarily reduce the maximum transmission speed that that modem was capable of performing—for example, by reducing its incoming capability from 7 Mbps to 1 Mbps. However, according to providers we spoke with, such reductions could violate the agreed-upon levels of services for which customers have paid. Therefore, under current agreements, two providers indicated they would need a directive from the government to take such actions.

Shutting down specific Internet sites would also reduce congestion, although many we spoke with expressed concerns about the feasibility of such an approach. Overall Internet congestion could be reduced if Web sites that accounted for significant amounts of traffic—such as those with video streaming—were shut down during a pandemic. According to one recently issued study, the number of adults who watch videos on video-sharing sites has nearly doubled since 2006, far outpacing the growth of many other Internet activities. However, most providers’ staff told us that blocking users from accessing such sites, while technically possible, would be very difficult and, in their view, would not address the congestion problem and would require a directive from the government.

Enjoy up to one Hogan's Heroes episode per day during the H1N1 flu pandemic

You have to love some of the players in the broadband industry who trot out their most-favored “network management” talking points to handle a national emergency.  It’s interesting to note providers told the GAO they were concerned with violating customer agreements regarding speed guarantees, when most providers never guarantee residential service speeds.  Their first solution is the Net Neutrality-busting traffic throttle, to slow everyone down to ration the “good enough for you” network in your neighborhood.  Shutting down too-popular, high bandwidth websites like Hulu (no worries – you can watch your favorite shows on our cable TV package) is apparently someone’s good idea, but considering providers admit it wouldn’t actually solve the congestion problem, one’s imagination can ponder what other problems such a shutdown might solve.

One provider indicated that such blocking would be difficult because determining which sites should be blocked would be a very subjective process. Additionally, this provider noted that technologically savvy site operators could change their Internet protocol addresses, allowing users to access the site regardless. Another provider told us that some of these large bandwidth sites stream critical news information. Furthermore, some state, local, and federal government offices and agencies, including DHS, currently use or have plans to increase their use of social media Web sites and to use video streaming as a means to communicate with the public. Shutting down such sites without affecting pertinent information would be a challenge for providers and could create more Internet congestion as users would repeatedly try to access these sites. According to one provider, two added complications are the potential liability resulting from lawsuits filed by businesses that lose revenue when their sites are shutdown or restricted and potential claims of anticompetitive practices, denial of free speech, or both. Some providers said that the operators of specific Internet sites could shut down their respective sites with less disruption and more effectively than Internet providers, and suggested that a better course of action would be for the government to work directly with the site operators.

A very subjective process indeed, but one many providers have sought to keep within their “network management” control as they battle Net Neutrality.  One would think “potential claims of anti-competitive practices” would represent an understatement, particularly if cable industry-operated TV Everywhere theoretically kept right on running even while Hulu could not.  As long time net users already know, outright censorship or content blockades almost always meet resistance from enterprising net users who make it their personal mission to get around such limits.

Expanding broadband networks to provide a better safety cushion during periods of peak usage is looking better and better.

Providers could help reduce the potential for a pandemic to cause Internet congestion by ongoing expansions of their networks’ capacities. Some providers are upgrading their networks by moving to higher capacity modems or fiber-to-the-home systems. For example, some cable providers are introducing a network specification that will increase the download capacity of residential networks from the 38 Mbps to about 152 to 155 Mbps. In addition to cable network upgrades, at least one telecommunications provider is offering fiber-to-the home, which is a broadband service operating over a fiber-optic communications network. Specifically, fiber-to-the-home Internet service is designed to provide Internet access with connection speeds ranging from 10 Mbps to 50 Mbps.

Hello.

Sounds like a plan to me, and not just for the benefit of the Wall Street crowd sick at home with the flu.  Such network upgrades can be economical and profitable when leveraged to upsell the broadband enthusiast to higher speed service tiers.  During periods of peak usage, such networks will withstand considerably more demand and provide a better answer to that nagging congestion problem.

The alternative is Comcast or Time Warner Cable, in association with the Department of Homeland Security, having to appear on Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room telling Americans they have a broadband rationing plan that will give you six options of usage per day.  Choose any one:

• Up to three videos of cats chasing laser pointers on YouTube
• One episode of Hogan’s Heroes
• Up to six videos of your friends playing Guitar Hero on Dailymotion
• Unlimited access to Drugstore.com to browse remedies
• Five MySpace videos of your favorite bands
• Up to 500 “tweets” boring your followers with every possible detail of your stuck-at-home-sick routine

Our Road Runner connection has been seriously degraded since Saturday night, and despite several hours of troubleshooting with several levels of technical support, and even a modem swap, our download speeds max out (when lucky) at around 1Mbps (instead of the normal 15+Mbps), while upload speed remains completely normal, which stumps even the Level 3 technicians locally.  Since nobody can figure this out, a service call is scheduled for tomorrow.  Our connection is too degraded to commit to normal publishing, so I’ll be firing up our Cricket broadband later today and publishing through that, so articles will be available later today.

When utilities want to “charge you for what you use,” it would be nice to trust the meter is accurately measuring your usage, California consumer advocates say.

In a growing controversy, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is now being accused of installing so-called “smart meters” that were smart for PG&E profits, but financially devastating for California consumers who face higher bills and growing questions about just how accurate those “smart meters” really are.

Customers across California who have had new meters installed, which are supposed to help consumers save energy by charging lower prices at off-peak usage times of day, report enormously higher bills from PG&E after installation.

State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter (Kern County), reports he has seen bills from customers that don’t begin to make sense.

California Senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter/Kern County)

“One farmer was charged $11,857 for running a piece of equipment that was never turned on. A local attorney at the hearing clutched a $500 bill from July, a month in which she was visiting family out of state and almost every appliance in her house was shut off,” he reports.

Florez quotes the woman — “My smart meter keeps reading these spikes in usage at noon. But no one was in the house,” she said. “It’s obvious to me that this technology is not ready for prime time.”

Customers across the state with smart meters have reported similar stories, and are angry with PG&E’s response to their concerns, which can be boiled down to, “the meter is right, you are wrong, now pay us.”

PG&E claims that during its own internal reviews, it found nobody being overcharged. Spokesman Jeff Smith says “in all 1700 of those cases we have not found an instance thus far of the smart meter transmitting inaccurate information or incorrect usage information.”

The California Public Utilities Commission doesn’t think that’s enough and has begun ordering an independent review of the “smart meter” program and accuracy of meter readings.

Liz Keogh spent 14 years collecting and analyzing data at the Institute for Social Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and now lives in Bakersfield, California.  She has been pulling out her old PG&E bills and records showing her utility use all the way back to 1983.  What she found since the “smart meter” was installed on her home was disturbing.

Her analysis was printed in the San Francisco Chronicle:

My July, August and September 2009 bills showed the highest usage and cost in 26-plus years, even though I rarely go over “baseline usage.” The dollar difference from 2008 to 2009 was $20 to $30 each month. Billing costs are a product of usage multiplied by kilowatt-hour rates, which, like the federal income tax structure, is “tiered,” so that the more you use, the more you pay – and at higher and higher rates. Analysis of usage is the first step toward understanding fluctuations in cost.According to the smart meter installed on Sept. 12, 2007, the increase in my 2008-09 usage over 2007 was:

	2008	2009
May	+5.6%	+28.6%
June	+7.5%	+32.6%
July	+10%	+50.2%
Aug.	+3.1%	+41.1%
Sept.	-4.8%	+67.9%
Oct.	+4.9%	NA

PG&E’s own data show there was not a significant difference in temperatures for each comparable month. Why, then, did my “usage” increase range from 30 percent to 70 percent in 2009, while the 2008 increases were no more than 10 percent?

Simple answer: Meter malfunctioning, whether accidental and idiosyncratic, or, as some claim, intentional.

The suspicion that funny business is going on might be justified when considering Bakersfield residents have been through this all before.

“[Several years ago] Bakersfield is where PG&E first realized it had made a $500 million mistake, installing tens of thousands of inferior meters that would never live up to the promise. So the utility purchased a new generation of meters from Silver Spring Networks Inc. of Redwood City. PG&E insists that these new meters are glitch-free, though it concedes that it has tested only 50 out of 250,000 meters in Kern County,” Florez said.

At a time when some broadband providers want to install their own meters to overcharge customers for their Internet service, the PG&E experience is telling.  Independent oversight of any meter comes down to the enforcement mechanism available to guarantee accuracy.  But broadband service in the United States is unregulated, and no such enforcement mechanism exists.

And just when you thought you could believe the rhetoric that utility customers who conserve their usage will save more money, another electric and gas utility in San Diego filed a rate increase request that will charge customers who have managed to cut their usage even higher prices than those who have not.

[flv width=”640″ height=”480″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KGET Bakersfield Senator Florez Questions SmartMeters 9-23-09.flv[/flv]

KGET-TV Bakersfield talked with Senator Florez on September 23 about the SmartMeter controversy (4 minutes)

More video coverage below the jump.

… Continue Reading