Another day, another angle on Internet Overcharging, this time from the team of Dr. Kevin A. Hassett & Dr. Robert J. Shapiro.  These two economists at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy have produced a very narrow report that takes a new angle on why Internet Overcharging schemes like consumption billing represent the answer to universal broadband adoption.  The study claims that the era of the “exaflood” is nearing, and private broadband providers are being called on to spend $100-300 billion dollars to meet the needs of the top 20% of “high bandwidth users” using most of the bandwidth.

The report asks, should the costs be divided equally between every customer, which they posit will increase broadband pricing across the board, or should 80% of those costs be paid by the 20% they claim consumes the most?  Their fingers are pressed firmly on the side of the scale marked “heavy users pay more,” theorizing that alone will increase broadband adoption.

What makes Towards Universal Broadband: Flexible Broadband Pricing and the Digital Divide different from the usual refrain that consumption billing is the “fairest way” to price broadband service is the presumed added benefit that such pricing will benefit rural communities, minorities and the poor.  Namely, that unless we move to such a system, rural consumers and low-income Americans will never purchase broadband service because of price sensitivity.  Increase pricing for everyone, they suggest, and the United States will not achieve the president’s ambition for universal broadband adoption.

The report is an industry dream come true.  Expect the usual suspects to wave it around in the air as “proof” of the need to overcharge you for broadband.

But before the Money Party gets started, let’s critically evaluate whether this report represents the solution we’ve been waiting for, or a nice excuse to simply increase prices and promise upgrades later.

It quickly becomes obvious the report is myopic from start to finish, presuming facts not in evidence, or that come from self-interested parties, and relies only on a single solution — price increases.  The only debate is over which customers pay more: all of them or just the “heavy users.”

Smart readers already know in the end, everyone pays more no matter what.

And Now the Rest of the Story

Of course, the differing rates of broadband adoption across racial, geographic and income classes are strongly interrelated. A large portion of the disparity in uptake rates by race and geography, for example, are driven by differences in household income. Studies have indicated that uptake rates also are strongly correlated with education and the need for high speed Internet in the workplace.

Our difficult economic times have reversed these trends over the past two years, and the broadband access gap between African‐Americans and white Americans widened in both 2008 and 2009. Broadband adoption among African‐Americans rose only slightly in 2008 and 2009 following several years of much more substantial increases. Meanwhile, broadband adoption by white households continued to rise steadily. As a result, the broadband‐access gap between the races was wider in 2009 than it had been in 2005. A significant rural‐urban gap in broadband uptake rates also has persisted, as rural Americans increased their broadband access at about the same pace as those who live in cities and suburbs.

Respondents to the Pew survey report that their average bills for broadband service fell from $39 to $34.50 between 2004 and 2008. Interestingly, adoption continued to rise in 2009 despite a jump in prices back to the 2004 level. To some extent, the 2009 price levels may reflect the willingness of a growing number of Americans to pay more for premium services that provide even higher speeds. The average monthly cost of basic service stood at $37.10 in 2009, while premium subscribers paid an average of $44.60, according to the Pew Survey. Additionally, economic studies have concluded that households that have adopted broadband Internet are far less price sensitive or “price elastic” than prospective adopters.

These findings are supported by recent experience, which suggests that adoption would have been even higher in 2009 if the price increases had not occurred. Pew reports, for example, that almost one in ten Americans either cancelled or cut back Internet service for financial reasons between April 2008 and April 2009. These cutbacks were greatest at the bottom of the income scale, with 17 percent of households earning $20,000 or less reporting that they reduced or gave up service during 2008.

Most of the Pew data in this section is verifiable, but really only tells a small part of a much greater story.  The broadband adoption rate continues to grow, but users are price sensitive, especially as  income levels decline.  It’s common sense to assume that the higher a cost for a product or service, the lower the adoption rate among income challenged consumers.  Of course, at no point do the authors ever contemplate broadband provider complicity in the current pricing structure for broadband.  They merely accept the status quo duopoly that most consumers face in broadband pricing, which is now on the increase as providers face revenue challenges in the video and telephone marketplace.  The racial component of their argument is hardly explored, so we have no idea whether it is an issue of income, household location, social factors, or some other hurdle we don’t know about.

Also totally unexplored is the question of broadband availability in rural communities.  In those areas, broadband adoption starts with having a service to adopt in the first place, followed by the value of a service at the slow speeds for high prices typically on offer.

My biggest criticism of this report is its tunnel-vision-like approach to defining the problem and crafting a single solution for it.  The report hints at something very pertinent to this debate, but then completely ignores it going forward.

“To some extent, the 2009 price levels may reflect the willingness of a growing number of Americans to pay more for premium services that provide even higher speeds.”

One might think a report based on how to obtain the revenue necessary to build broadband networks of the future might want to explore the potential revenue earned from premium services delivering higher speeds, particularly considering those enhanced services are often adopted by those that use their connections to a much greater degree than average consumers.  Indeed, since the report will later suggest that 20% of the customers who consume the most data should pay 80% of the costs for upgrades, it’s more important than ever to consider whether these customers already present a financial solution to their self-described dilemma.  Would higher usage consumers gratefully accept higher pricing for faster tiers of service?  Would speed-based tiering represent a better, more positive solution for consumers and the industry in lieu of consumption based pricing for every broadband consumer.  The authors don’t bother to find out.

The report also seems to downplay the fact that 100% of consumers may never want broadband service in their home, and that doesn’t necessarily represent a problem.  Customers that have it, the report notes, are more committed to keeping it than those who don’t have it are about getting it in the first place.  I’m not certain that actually represents a problem, particularly if it means pickpocketing loyal customers in an effort to capture potential new customers that simply don’t want the service at any price.

Hassett and Shapiro are either unaware, or ignore, the fact many providers already heavily market to non-broadband customers, offering promotional pricing and discounts, as well as “economy” tiers providing cheaper, albeit slower, broadband service.  These economy tiers are still significantly faster than dial-up, and provide enough of an enhanced online experience to bring budget-minded consumers on board, if only to discard their current dial-up service provider.

Customers who spend significant amounts of time online already demonstrate their loyalty to the product — it’s one of the few success stories in the current economy for cable and telephone companies who are seeing slowed growth or declines from their other product lines.

To Capture New Customers, You Should Be Able to Experiment on Your Loyal Customers

As policymakers consider the future of broadband policy, they must try to determine whether the historic pattern of technology diffusion will replicate itself with broadband or whether the re‐widening of the Internet access gap is a harbinger of new challenges.  Specifically, they must ask themselves what would happen to adoption trends if Internet service providers change their consumer pricing models to accommodate additional costs arising from expanded demand for bandwidth. This paper is intended to provide insights into those questions by examining the impact of various pricing approaches and pricing allocations among consumers.

Policymakers might also want to consider whether the current model for providing broadband, which is a monopoly or duopoly for most consumers, is the best thing for this country.  They might also want to take a look outside of their theory bubbles and review what happened in Canada where their experiment came to life.  Not only did pricing changes anger existing customers, it ultimately provided little, if any savings for consumers.  Indeed, when the usage caps arrived and consumption billing arrived, so did price increases and speed throttles.  Policymakers need not dwell too much on their theories and numbers provided by this report, when a quick trip to Toronto or Montreal can provide real world evidence that these schemes don’t provide real savings to consumers, just higher pricing and more restrictive service, and a continued decline in Canada’s broadband rankings.

None of this is explored in this report, of course.

When Self-Interested Parties & Astroturfers Provide the Facts & Figures…

An inescapable and critical flaw in this report is the repeated reliance on data from known astroturfers, funded by the broadband industry to represent their interests, along with self-interested parties like equipment manufacturers whose sales will, in part, depend on making a case for a need to buy their “solutions” to the “problems” they define.  At no time do the authors ever consider whether the data they are relying on is credible, much less provide readers with some disclaimers about source self-interest.

Cisco Systems, for example, has forecast that Internet traffic will quintuple from 2008 to 2013, driven largely by video and what it calls “visual networking.”

Cisco is well known for their reports predicting connectivity calamity… unless you manage it by purchasing Cisco products, of course.  This report cites Hyperconnectivity and the Approaching Zettabyte Era, something we criticized back in June for not exactly being an independent, dispassionate piece.

In one, widely‐cited report, EDUCAUSE, a higher‐education technology group estimated that providing “big‐broadband” to every home and business, with sufficient bandwidth to meet demand, would cost an additional $100 billion over the next three to five years and even larger investments in capacity going forward.

Apparently the authors stopped reading EDUCAUSE’s report after capturing the dollar data they cited, because unlike Hassett and Shapiro’s very narrow focus on justifying broadband pricing ripoffs, EDUCAUSE’s A Blueprint for Big Broadband, by John Windhausen Jr., calls out the failures prevalent among broadband providers in the United States.  Windhausen suggests consumption billing trials are a symptom of a broadband provider not making appropriate investments in their network, instead relying on temporary fixes like usage caps to try and reduce demand on their broadband platforms.  He specifically mentioned Time Warner Cable’s experiment in April as an example.

Windhausen advocates for a range of solutions to the capacity crunch that don’t involve ripping off consumers by charging them ever-increasing prices for service, or consumption billing.

Solutions do include:

• Leadership, Vision, and Goals – America should lead the world in broadband speed and availability, with 100Mbps being the target by 2012.
• Organization – Establish a Broadband Council that includes consumers (remember us?), business leaders, and public officials to implement and oversee broadband policy.
• Tax Incentives – Reward the private sector for taking risks on the most advanced technological solutions (fiber in particular) to overcome Wall Street resistance.
• A New Universal Broadband Fund – Direct subsidies to rural and other difficult markets to ensure broadband equality.
• Openness – Net Neutrality protections enforced by law.
• State and Municipal Broadband and Rights-of-Way – An end to industry-driven legal prohibitions on state/municipal broadband service.
• Consumer Education – Efforts to educate consumers about the benefits and managing risks from the online world.
• Broadband Technology Research – America should be a leader in discovering and managing new breakthrough’s in broadband technology.

Or just impose consumption billing on consumers, as Dr. Kevin A. Hassett & Dr. Robert J. Shapiro advocate, and providers will magically lower prices for consumers and create and build the next generation of broadband networks with the money they earn.

Hassett and Shapiro need to get out more and review the documentation assembled over the course of two weeks in April when Time Warner Cable attempted their experiment, because those promised network upgrades, assuming consumers accepted the consumption billing proposal (and they in loud and large numbers did not), turned out to come without any firm dates, and just weeks later were dismissed by the CEO as unnecessary in the short term, because Time Warner Cable has plenty of capacity on their existing network.

It’s hard to sell an “exaflood” when the broadband provider’s CEO denies there is one at hand.

But Hassett and Shapiro still try:

Another estimate cited by David McClure, the head of the U.S. Internet Industry Association, and John Ernhardt, Senior Manager of Policy Communications for Cisco Systems, projects that the long‐term investments required to keep up with fast‐rising bandwidth demand could cost an additional $300 billion over 20 years. (David McClure, “The Exabyte Internet,” U.S. Internet Industry Association, 1 May 2007)

Teletruth, a watchdog site, identified USIIA as one of several groups that TeleTruth called out for its association with an industry public relations/public policy agenda:

U.S. Internet Industry Association

• “The U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA), a 13-year-old trade association that represents “companies engaged in Internet commerce, content and connectivity.” Verizon is the biggest name represented on its board of directors.”
• David P. McClure, President and CEO, U.S. Internet Industry Association, is also an author of the NMRC Muni Wifi report.
• USIIA has been a client of Issue Dynamics.

The USIIA has been pushing the theory of the “exaflood” that remains highly dubious in the eyes of independent researchers who also study broadband traffic.  Hassett and Shapiro accept it on face value.

Heavy Users Are Already Hooked & Won’t Mind Paying More Anyway

Absent another source of revenue, such as a system that assesses fees on content providers or high bandwidth users, the costs of these additional investments will generate broad price increases substantially larger than those experienced during the expansion of dialup Internet access.

Heavy bandwidth users are assumed to be relatively price insensitive, so their broadband subscription rates remain unaffected by price increases. We do not have adequate data to assess this assumption, but it is reasonable given the likelihood that habit formation would drive consumers to continue the practices that have driven their high bandwidth usage to date. To the extent that high bandwidth users are more sensitive to higher prices than we have assumed, companies would have to choose between spreading the cost to lower bandwidth users, and increasing prices more for high bandwidth users.

We’re clearly well into the realm of “assuming facts not in evidence” with the authors’ assumptions on the price sensitivity of customers: heavy, medium, or light.  When Time Warner Cable attempted their experiment, there was considerable outrage at the premise of consumption billing, because consumers don’t want this pricing, regardless of their usage.

The authors’ arrogant presumption that once consumers are hooked on the service, they’ll continue to pay more (much more under the ‘20% of users pay for 80% of the $100-300 billion dollar upgrades’ formula) comes with no evidence of any kind.  In fact, all of the evidence is that consumers will become upset and raise hell with the providers that try it.

Assessing fees on content providers was an industry favorite just a few years ago, and it’s interesting to find this “solution” brought up yet again.  It was an astroturfer favorite, and was one of the major points of contention over the Net Neutrality debate, now firing up once again.  The industry wants to Re-Educate consumers about consumption billing and is now faced with re-fighting the Net Neutrality debate and this nice report, from the industry’s perspective, appears right on cue.

How About Asking the Industry to Take Some of their Profits and Invest in Their Own Networks

Totally absent from this report is even a cursory review of the current profits earned by broadband providers using the existing flat rate pricing formula.  They are well into the billions. Today, despite those profits and the scary “exaflood” rhetoric,  many have reduced the amount of money they spend on their broadband networks for needed upgrades.  Instead, it appears some of that money is being funneled into public policy lobbying efforts to get consumers to accept much higher pricing for broadband under the guise of “fairness.”

Nowhere are the authors willing to explore industry investment in their networks, much less the implications of a national broadband policy that will play a part in constructing, overseeing, and operating a national broadband platform in the interests of citizens, not simply shareholders.

An obvious path to bigger profits for providers already exists, and consumers enthusiastically support it as being an even fairer solution — charging a premium for higher speed tiers of broadband service.  No light user is going to commit to spending $60+ dollars a month on a premium speed package, but many of the larger consumers of broadband data will do so, happily.  Those investments can easily pave the way for DOCSIS 3 deployments which benefit every customer on a cable network, from light users not subjected to neighborhood congestion, to average users that can quickly access the content they want, to heavy users that will enjoy the faster online experience they have clamored for, and demonstrate a willingness to pay to achieve.

That’s a broadband success story everyone can agree on.

Unfortunately, it’s also the one that requires providers spend some of those big profits to construct the networks capable of providing premium speed tiers.  For them, the path of least resistance is to stall upgrades as long as possible by slapping consumption billing and usage caps on consumers to get them to reduce their usage, even as their own broadband bandwidth costs continue to decline.

Why We Don’t Pick Up What They Are Putting Down

Consumers’ real world experiences mean a lot more than statistical theories (especially when some of those statistics are fed by the self-interested broadband industry).  They know cable bills never decrease, only increase, unless you drop services.  They know many phone companies aren’t willing to invest in fiber optics to the home and settle for ordinary DSL or hybrid fiber-copper systems that don’t deliver much real “savings” in the end.  The authors assume that consumers and policymakers will accept the premise that if you allow them to overcharge a portion of broadband customers, it will miraculously create benevolent pricing for income challenged consumers who will finally adopt broadband because of the public-service-like generosity of the broadband industry to give them a much reduced price.

That’s one theory the authors cannot prove, and don’t even try.

In Canada, the authors’ findings have already been tested, and it was bad news for consumers right down the line.  First price increases, then usage caps, then speed throttles, then even more price increases.  Even the highest speed premium tiers carry relatively paltry usage caps, diminishing their potential value to Canadian consumers.  And this rapacious capture of consumer cash has not exactly provided Canadians with world class broadband.  Instead, Canada falls further and further behind in global broadband rankings, evoking outrage from consumers upset that the upgrades they were sold on aren’t exactly in a hurry to arrive, and even when they do, the usage caps, throttles and ever-increasing prices remain.

That’s not broadband I can believe in.

In 2007, we took our first major trip away from western New York in 20 years and spent two weeks an hour away from Calgary, Alberta.

After two weeks in Kananaskis Country, Banff, Calgary, and other spots all over southern Alberta, we came away with the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly:

The Good

• Alberta is like Texas, only without the anger: Friendly people everywhere
• Amazing Canadian Rockies contrasting with vast flat prairies and never-ending views of canola, buckwheat, and other crops
• The only place that could convince me to purchase and wear a cowboy hat (they are functional after all)

The Bad

• A Dodge Charger is considered a “small” rental car on Alberta’s vast paved (and frequently unpaved) roadways
• Calgary’s love of photo radar and red light cameras, which must sustain the city’s revenue base
• You’re in “pop” country, and you’d better like Pepsi because Coca-Cola is hard to find.  A “can of pop” on a menu means exactly that.  Ask for ice.
• There are no bumper stickers in Alberta — there are “deckles.”  I contemplated phoning the CBC to find out what a deckle was until I realized they meant “decal.”

The Ugly

• Internet access in hotels we stayed at was either non-existent, slow, or erratic.

Now before you say vacations should mean a break from the Internet, know that for those of us who spend a lot of free time taking care of websites like this, that is the equivalent of asking someone to take a vacation from electricity.  I don’t do camping.

It turns out my experience is becoming less common, as hotels realize sharing a DSL line among 50+ guests on a Linksys wireless router stuck on a shelf in the lobby is just not going to cut it.  Instead, hotels and motels not only in Canada but across the United States have beefed up their broadband… and discovered they could make a killing by overcharging guests to access it.

Now consumers in growing numbers are deciding the “daily fee” for broadband common on hotel bills, often ranging from $10-15 a day, is a dealbreaker.  They are taking their business elsewhere, even if it means foregoing a luxury hotel to stay in a middle-of-the-road chain with the screaming kids in the pool downstairs, as long as the Internet is free.

USA Today reports that for some consumers, charging any fee for Internet access at a hotel is unacceptable.

Frequent business traveler Randall Blinn refuses to stay at hotels that charge for Internet access.

“It really irritates me that the more expensive hotels charge for Internet access when the inexpensive hotels provide it for free,” says Blinn, a computer consultant in Louisville.

Blinn is one of many travelers disturbed by hotels that charge a daily fee for Internet access. He says he books less-expensive hotels with free Internet access, even if his company will pay for a more expensive hotel that charges for online access.

Some 40 percent of hotel chains in the United States have a daily fee for Internet access.  For the hotels that charge, it’s just another source of revenue, just like charging for in-room telephone calls that consumers learned to avoid by using their cell phones.

For Blinn, who has spent about 50 nights in hotels this year, any charge is unacceptable. If he must stay at a hotel that charges, he says, he leaves the hotel for a fast-food restaurant or a coffee shop that provides free Internet access.

A few weeks ago, Blinn says, he spent a lot of time in the concierge lounge of the Marriott hotel in Salt Lake City, because the hotel was charging for Internet access in rooms but not in the lounge.

Some consumers have found methods to avoid the daily fee, ranging from arguments with hotel personnel demanding that daily fees be waived (one went as far as to turn in all of the personal care items left in his room, which he argued cost more than Internet access did anyway), to strategically choosing to stay adjacent to lobbies or other public areas where free Wi-Fi was available, hoping to jump on the wireless signal from their rooms.  Others bring wireless data plans from their cell phone provider, and use those networks for wireless access, bypassing the hotel altogether.

Some hotels automatically waive fees for their most frequent guests, typically enrolled in premium guest club memberships.  But for people like Blinn, having to pay for Internet access for 10-14 days of hotel stays isn’t worth it to “earn” free Internet.  He simply avoids any hotel that charges for access, and let’s them know why.

Jeff Weinstein, editor in chief of Hotels magazine, a trade publication, suggests that kind of complaining will probably put an end to the “daily Internet access fee.”

“I think the message from consumers about this is getting louder, and you will continue to see more (hotel) brands move toward free access over the next year or two,” he told the newspaper.

Below the jump, learn which hotel chains charge guests for Internet access, and which do not.

… Continue Reading

Opponents of Net Neutrality regularly dismiss concerns about providers blocking, interfering with, or rejecting content as little more than scare-mongering.  Even in the case of competitors, they assure us, no provider would ever consider getting between the customer and the services they choose to use.  Therefore, we don’t need Net Neutrality provisions enacted into law.

Wouldn’t you know, Cablevision-owned Newsday, a newspaper on Long Island, just unknowingly illustrated what happens when a company puts its own competitive and ownership interests ahead of not only the customer, but also newspaper common sense.

As any newspaper reader knows, the local cable and phone companies are not shy about advertising their products.  For years, Verizon has been spending several hundred thousand dollars a year to run full page ads touting its FiOS service on Long Island.  Such regular advertisers are hard to find these days in the ailing newspaper industry.  Last year, Newsday itself was put up for sale, acquired by Cablevision for $650 million dollars.

Now that the local cable company owns Newsday, they’ve decided to reject advertising from Verizon for its FiOS service. Verizon is now Cablevision’s biggest competitor, providing fiber optic service for television, broadband, and telephone service across Long Island.

The New York Times reports that Newsday has basically told Verizon “don’t call us, we’ll call you” when the phone company inquired about advertising space.

Newsday won’t comment about the reasons why Verizon’s ads were rejected, other than issuing a generic statement:

“We do not comment on specific ads except to say that Newsday, like every other media company, including The New York Times, accepts or rejects advertising at its own discretion,” said Deidra Parrish Williams, a Newsday spokeswoman.

Eric Rabe, a senior vice president of Verizon, told the Times that was fine with him, noting that’s money from Verizon’s pockets not going to feed Cablevision’s pervasive presence across Long Island.

The Dolan family, which runs Cablevision, dominates Long Island, running the cable system, a popular news channel – News 12, and is still the primary place consumers go to acquire broadband service.  Now they also own the biggest newspaper on Long Island as well.

This hasn’t been the first instance that Cablevision-owned Newsday has gotten embroiled in ethical controversy.  The Times notes:

In January, the top three editors at Newsday did not report for work for a few days amid reports that they had been fired or had resigned in a dispute with Cablevision over the paper’s coverage of the New York Knicks basketball team, which is also owned by the company. The editors returned to duty, and neither they nor the company offered a full explanation of what had happened.

Newsday also recently rejected advertising from the Tennis Channel, which is upset with Cablevision because it will not carry the channel.  The Tennis Channel was rebuffed by Newsday when it tried to buy ads inviting viewers to find the network on Verizon FiOS or satellite.

Kelly McBride, the ethics group leader at the journalism foundation Poynter Institute, was troubled by Newsday‘s antics.

“Newspapers accept ads at their own discretion, but they generally set the bar pretty high for rejecting advertising, because they don’t want to be seen as denying access to free speech,” she said. She added that appearing to deny an ad for competitive business reasons, rejecting an ad that is not obviously offensive or failing to explain the rejection, could undermine a paper’s credibility.

Could a company that considers it has the discretion to reject competitors’ access to its properties also extend that notion to its broadband service?  If a competing video provider used broadband to deliver access to its channel lineup, would a competitive threat like that be welcome on Cablevision’s Optimum Online?  How about criticisms of the company or its assets?

Newsday has chosen loyalty to its owner over lucrative advertising revenue to help sustain the paper.  That has disturbing implications for the broadband world as well.

Enacting Net Neutrality protections into law guarantees a company never finds itself in a quandary over where loyalties lie.  These protections guarantee that providers do not hamper, block, or interfere with the online services customers want to utilize.  No “competitive reasons” need ever be used as an excuse to block service from consumers.

Cablevision has not engaged in any online bad behavior to date, but why wait around to find out what the future holds?

Astroturfers like Scott Cleland got all excited yesterday about another misinformed piece about broadband usage caps from George Ou, a technology blogger who previously gained infamy from his strident opposition to Net Neutrality and his ridicule of the “scare-mongers” who predicted throttled speeds, multi-tiered broadband service, penalties and blocks for using Voice Over IP services, and providers trying to control what you see on the net.

George Ou

Back in 2006, he wrote a three-pager on ZDNet lambasting Save The Internet, MoveOn, and other Net Neutrality proponents who didn’t agree with Ou’s position that this was simply a technology issue.  He accused the groups of hysteria at a fever pitch over their concerns Net Neutrality opposition was much more about politics, profit, and protection of the providers’ business models.

With positions like that, Ou need not ever worry about job security because his rhetorical stars are in perfect alignment with big telecommunications companies.  I’m sure as long as he joins the broadband tug of war on the side of AT&T and other big providers, some policy institute, astroturf group, or other industry-friendly job would always be there for him to take.

Oh wait.  He has.  But more on that later.

These days, Ou has been pondering broadband usage caps, our bread and butter issue on Stop the Cap!

You do not get a cookie if you guessed he’s all for them, because that would be too easy.

Ou decided that the recent comparison between broadband usage caps in Japan and the United States by Chiehyu Li and James Losey of the New America Foundation, was… problematic.  That usually means we are about to get a technological-jargon-cannon barrage in an effort to suggest those folks at the New America Foundation ‘just don’t understand how the Internet works.’

You decide:

Li and Losey point out that while Japanese ISPs caps the upstream; they are generous with unlimited downstream while American ISPs are beginning to cap both the upstream and downstream.  But this is a flawed analysis because capping the upstream effectively cuts to total downstream peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic to the same levels.  And because P2P is one of the most heavily used application on the Internet accounting for the vast majority of Japanese Internet traffic, cutting upstream usage greatly reduce all P2P traffic and all Internet usage which was necessary because their Internet backbones were severely congested.  I’ve argued that it is far more efficient to manage the network but until then the caps are needed.

Another problem with Li and Losey’s analysis is that it only looks at the usage cap without an analysis of the duty cycle and its ramifications.  When we compare the usable duty cycle between ISPs in Japan compared to ISPs in the U.S. derived from Li and Losey’s data, we see a completely different picture.  By splitting the U.S. ISP usage caps (some of these caps are only in proposal phase) into an upstream and downstream cap proportional to the upstream/downstream connection speeds, I was able to generate Figure 1 below.  What it actually shows is that U.S. broadband providers have usage caps that allow users to use their Internet connection far more frequently than users in Japan.  So while a user in Japan is capped to 40 minutes a day of upstream Internet usage, which indirectly caps download speed because it severely trims the number and generosity of P2P seeders.  AT&T’s proposed DSL usage caps (similar to other DSL providers) allow for 1111 minutes of usage per day on the upstream and 97 minutes on the downstream per day.  So broadband consumers who are dissatisfied with their tiny Time Warner usage caps can simply switch to their DSL provider.

I guess that wraps that up.  Or not.

Ou wants us to assume quite a bit in his own analysis.  His contention that the “vast majority” of Japanese Internet traffic is peer-to-peer is “proven” by linking to an earlier article… written by him… saying just that.  But let’s grant Ou the premise that peer-to-peer is at the epicenter of bandwidth congestion in Japan.  Ou defends Japanese providers for specifically targeting the upstream traffic, pointing out stingy torrent users that don’t give as much as they get will automatically be speed limited during downloads (Bit Torrent’s way of equal sharing).  But he never extends the upstream cap argument to the United States, where he implies a similar traffic overload is occurring.  Instead, he merely acknowledges that domestic providers are experimenting with caps that limit both uploading and downloading, impacting every broadband user, not just those “problem” peer to peer users.

Caps.  The necessary evil?

Ou is okay with the equivalent of dealing with a pesky fly in the kitchen by setting the house on fire.  Doing that might solve the fly problem, but makes living there unpleasant at best in the future.

In fact, the impetus for dealing with the peer to peer “problem” in Japan turns out to be as much about copyright politics as bandwidth management.¹

I also have no idea why Ou would spend time developing a “duty cycle” formula in an effort to try and convince Americans that those generous looking caps in Japan are actually worse for you than the paltry ones tested in the United States.  His formula is dependent on the speed levels offered by Japanese vs. American providers to work.  But then Ou tries to debunk the speeds on offer in Japan as more fiction than reality, and throws his own “duty cycle” formula under the bus as a result:

Li and Losey also paint a dire picture that Japan has 10 or more times the connectivity speed as the US, but the most accurate real-world measurement of Internet throughput in Japan according to the Q1-2009 results from Akamai’s State of the Internet report indicates that Japanese broadband customers only average about 8 Mbps.

Ou then exposes he is completely clueless about the state of broadband in some of the communities that actually cope with usage caps, or were threatened with them.  Ou’s suggestion that unhappy Time Warner Cable customers could simply leave a capped Road Runner for DSL service from the phone company leaves residents in Rochester, New York cold.  For them, that means coping with an Acceptable Use Policy from Frontier that defines 5GB per month as appropriate for their DSL customers.  In Beaumont, Texas, the limbo dance of caps last left residents picking between a cap as low as 20GB with AT&T or a 40GB “standard plan” from Time Warner Cable, before Time Warner dropped the “experiment” for now.

Ou should have just suggested customers in western New York and the Golden Triangle just pick up and move to another city.  It would have been more realistic than his “if you don’t like them, switch” solution.  It also presumes there is a viable DSL service to switch to, as well as whether or not the service can provide a sufficiently speedy connection to take advantage of today’s broadband applications.

And here is where you can draw lines between the special interests, astroturfers, industry-connected folks and actual real, live, consumers.

Ou brings out the shiny keys, waving them in consumers’ faces telling them to look somewhere else for answers:

So the reality is that usage caps isn’t what Americans should be focusing on and the priority should be to encourage more next generation broadband deployment.

Internet Overcharging schemes that charge consumers up to 300% more for their broadband service, with no corresponding improvement in service, is not the problem for Ou, but it certainly was for Time Warner Cable customers in several cities chosen for their Overcharging experiment.  The need to encourage more broadband deployment is fine, but American broadband customers will be broke long before that ever happens without some other pro-consumer solutions.

Ou has a problem though.  He has a new employer.

A corporate restructuring at ZDNet in the spring of 2008 meant Ou was free to pursue other professional interests, and wouldn’t you know, he turned up as Policy Director of “pro-commerce” Digital Society.  That’s a “free market think tank” website whose domain name is administered by one Jon Henke in… you guessed it, suburban Washington, DC (Arlington, Virginia to be exact).

The sharks are in the water.

Jon Henke

Henke, Executive Director of Digital Society, and presumably Ou’s boss, has quite the agenda of his own, and it’s not consumer driven.  He has a long history of involvement in conservative politics, which brings new questions about how Henke would approach “encouraging next generation broadband deployment.”  Does he favor broadband stimulus money?  How about municipal broadband competition?

In addition to his work with Digital Society, Henke also runs something called the DC Signal Team.  What’s that?  Let’s see:

DC Signal is a strategic intelligence and communications firm specializing in new media consulting. Based in the Washington, DC area, we work with a range of clients — corporations, trade associations, campaigns, and individuals — to craft and execute an effective online strategy.  We provide timely intelligence and analysis, as well as communications that can reach and resonate with key opinion makers, policy experts, and elected officials.

Our expertise in new media communications sets DC Signal apart, allowing us to filter out the background noise on the Internet to deliver just the most relevant information, make creative, appropriate recommendations based on that information, and target communications directly to the most influential audiences.

I love the smell of plastic grass in the morning.

That’s right, folks.  DC Signal is a classic PR firm that uses targeted communications to reach the most appropriate audience for their campaigns.  Need to reach consumers and sell them on a pro-industry position?  Set up a “grassroots” group to do it.  Need to baffle the media, lawmakers and opinion leaders with industry BS?  Set up “authoritative” websites to deliver carefully filtered “relevant information.”  What better way to do that than with a blog like Digital Society?

But wait, there’s more.

Henke is also working for an innocuously named group called Arts+Labs, which starts its mission statement out innocently enough:

Arts+Labs is a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today’s rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products and services to consumers. From the early development of motion picture technology, voice recordings and radio to today’s 3D computer graphics, streaming digital movies, “on-demand” entertainment,  online games, news and information, innovative technologies and creativity have always gone hand in hand to enrich our understanding and appreciation of arts, entertainment and culture.

Then things become more ominous.

At the same time, Arts+Labs is working to educate consumers about how net pollution – spam, malware, computer viruses and illegal file trafficking – threatens to transform the Internet from an essential catalyst to safely deliver this content to consumers, into a viral distribution mechanism that will choke off the Internet for consumers and future innovators and creators alike.

I can understand the threats from spam, malware, and computer viruses — what groups out there actually advocate for these? — but the “illegal file trafficking” thrown in at the end had me wondering.

I smell industry money, probably from providers who oppose Net Neutrality and want to throttle peer to peer applications, from Hollywood content producers who want to keep their content off The Pirate Bay, the music industry who is always paranoid about piracy, and of course equipment manufacturers who sell the hardware that does the bandwidth management.

So who “partners” with Arts+Labs?

• Viacom
• NBC Universal
• AT&T
• Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI)
• Verizon
• Microsoft
• Songwriters Guild of America
• Cisco
• American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)

There you go.

Arts+Labs tries to be clever about its agenda, not so much with strident opposition to Net Neutrality, but instead promoting “consumer interests” by insisting that providers fully disclose the abuse about to be heaped on their customers.  In a press release in June, the group advocated its own national broadband strategy recommendations to the FCC:

A Safe Internet and Smart Management Will Boost Digital Society

It also said that a safe Internet must be a core part of a national broadband strategy and that the failure to protect online data and crack down on net pollution such as malware, spam, phishing and other Internet crime will erode the value of the Internet and discourage broadband adoption.

“To drive adoption and build a successful digital society that reaches every American, all of us must accept responsibility for minimizing online risks, protecting users’ privacy, and ensuring data security against malicious online activity and cybercrime,” A+L said.

It also urged the Commission to embrace “smart management tools and techniques.”

“Used effectively, smart management of our networks will stimulate broadband adoption by expanding the scope of activities available to consumers, by addressing network congestion, and by defending against hacking, phishing, identity theft and other forms of cybercrime,” the filing added.

But it said network operators must not abuse management tools to interfere with competitors or consumers rights and noted:  “In a digital society, network managers owe their customers transparency about their network management practices, including proactive disclosure of new policies or innovations that may affect users’ experiences.”

A+L Urges Collaborative Effort, Says Pragmatism Should Trump Ideology

It also urged the Commission to avoid unnecessary regulatory constraints that would interfere with the ability of content providers, network operators and other Internet-related businesses to experiment with new business models and to offer innovative new services and options to consumers.

Finally, A+L urged every Internet industry and every individual who uses the Internet to work together to achieve the nation’s broadband goals.

“Building an inclusive digital society and achieving our broadband goals will require all of us to think outside of silos, to choose pragmatic and effective policies over ideology, and to drive broadband adoption by encouraging the creation of exciting content, protecting intellectual property, and ensuring that the Internet is a safe place to be.  And, the guiding principle on every issue should be to find the solution that moves broadband forward,” A+L concluded.

Broadband throttles and Internet Overcharging aren’t anti-consumer — they are “new policies or innovations.”  As long as the provider discloses them, all is well.

The ideology reference in the press release is remarkable, considering the people who involve themselves in Arts+Media represent a veritable hackathon of the DC political elite, from Mike McCurry, former Clinton Administration press secretary, Mark McKinnon, who advised President George W. Bush, to the aforementioned Jon Henke, who was hired originally to do “new media” damage control for former Virginia senator George “Macaca” Allen and then went to work for the presidential campaign of Fred Thompson.

As usual, the only people not on Arts+Labs’ People page are actual consumers.

To wrap up this party of special interests, which consumers aren’t invited to, we wind our way back to the home page of Digital Society, which features a familiar roster of recommended blogs and websites to visit.  Among them:

• Arts & Labs blog (Henke works with them)
• Broadband Politics (run by Richard Bennett, who forgot he worked for a K Street Lobbyist, actually on K Street (read the comments at the bottom of the linked article)
• Cisco Policy Blog (also a partner with Arts+Labs, has a direct interest in selling the bandwidth management hardware)
• Verizon Policy Blog (also a partner with Arts+Labs, and an interested provider in this issue)

In the beginning of this piece, I recited some of the “scare mongering” Ou accused groups of engaging in on the Net Neutrality debate back in 1996.  The first major Net Neutrality battle was with Comcast over bandwidth throttles.  The barely-conscious FCC under Kevin Martin spanked Comcast (who sued, of course) and we’ve been in a holding pattern ever since.  But the predictions have become remarkably true north of the American border, where Canada endures all of the things Ou swore up and down in 1996 would never happen.

• Most major broadband providers in Canada throttle the speeds of peer to peer applications, reducing speeds to a fraction promised in their marketing materials.
• Most major broadband providers in Canada not only charge customers based on broadband speed, but also by the volume of data consumed, causing spikes in customer bills and a reduction in usage allowances in some cases.  Customers now face overlimit fees and penalties for exceeding the Internet usage ration they are granted each month.
• In 2006, Shaw Communications in Canada tried sticking a $10 monthly fee on broadband customers wanting to use Voice Over IP telephone service.  Vonage Canada complained loudly at the time.
• As far as controlling what you see online, that’s already in the cards in the States, if the cable industry has any say in the matter.

With a pliable FCC, what exists in Canada today will exist in the United States tomorrow without Net Neutrality protections enacted into law.

(footnoted material appears below the break)

… Continue Reading

I receive a considerable amount of e-mail asking me a variety of questions about myself, this site, who backs it, and why we do things the way we do, so it’s time to launch a mailbag column here on Stop the Cap! to answer the mail, especially for those who may have similar questions along the way!

For this first round, I’ve left out the names.  I’ll be changing our Contact form shortly to allow readers to submit future questions here and specify if they want their names used or not during the answers.

Phillip "Where Is My August Vacation?" Dampier

Q. What companies, industries, or groups finance Stop the Cap! and its online efforts?

A. Stop the Cap! receives absolutely zero dollars from any company, industry, group, lobbyist, special interest, foundation, or anything even resembling one.  This website is 100% financed by myself and through individual contributions received from consumers who use the Donate button on the right.  We’re as far away from astroturf one can get.  Plastic grass is not for us.  There are groups out there that share the same consumer protection interests, and those groups will get mentioned here, but I am personally suspicious of any group that receives industry financing.

This site would not exist if Internet Service Providers had not started to abuse their market positions with Internet Overcharging experiments and schemes designed to limit consumers from using what is already a highly profitable service.  Usage caps, overlimit fees and penalties, and Net Neutrality violations like speed throttling are all anti-consumer, designed to reduce industry costs and discourage you from using your broadband service, all while still charging you more.

Q. I have read a few of your articles on Free Press’ Save the Internet website.  What relationship do you have with Free Press?

A. We are allies in the sense that their positions on issues have uniformly agreed with our own.  Great minds think alike, and their consistent pro-consumer positions on telecommunications issues make them a natural ally, particularly considering the higher profile they have, especially in Washington.  Despite attacks from some conservatives and astroturfers, Free Press does not accept industry money either, and is supported with the individual contributions of those who believe in their cause.  Free Press’ scope is also much broader than ours, taking positions on a wider range of issues.  The reprinting of some of our content helps us bring our own issues to the much larger base of consumer activists Free Press has, which has been instrumental in our Calls to Action when we need to reach out to elected officials or other policymakers.

We also have supported the efforts of Consumers Union, Public Knowledge, the Communications Workers of America, and several other public policy groups, but only on the issues where we share agreement.

Q. What is your usual schedule for publishing articles?

A. It has evolved over time, and depends mostly on how much newsworthy material is out there.  During the month of April, when Time Warner Cable was engaged in their Internet Overcharging experiment, articles were published here on a fast and furious basis because of rapid-changing developments.  August is always the slowest month of the year, as people enjoy the vacation time I don’t get.  This month, for example, we’ve broadened coverage to include competition and astroturfing reports that are not directly about Internet Overcharging, but will help us lay a foundation to help fight anti-consumer activities.  States are still being pressured to adopt industry-friendly legislation like statewide franchising.  It helps to point elected officials to concrete reports of just how anti-consumer those kinds of policies have proven to be in other states.

Articles are often not published on Friday and weekends because Friday is traditionally an errand-running day for me, and during the slower summer months, very little happens on weekends.  But if coverage warrants, you may find new content here published late into the evening and all weekend long.

In the morning, story coverage is planned for that day.  Readers’ story tips always get first consideration.  Most days there is a longer article that takes several hours to research and prepare, and at least one or two shorter items.  The average long article takes three to four hours to research, write, review, and publish.  Articles with multimedia content can take much longer.  Shorter articles typically take no more than one hour.  Most articles are published between 12pm-4pm ET.

Articles from our contributing writers will often turn up in the evening hours.  We are always looking for additional writers here.

Q. Why does Stop the Cap! cover Canada and other countries?

A. Internet Overcharging is Internet Overcharging no matter where it takes place.  Our Canadian coverage is extremely important because it illustrates how abusive industry practices can impact broadband service close to home.  Canada is illustrative of what can happen when an industry gets its way with a regulatory authority, which nearly rubber stamps whatever the industry wants to do to their customers.  The fact most Canadians are quite aware of how bad the abusive practices are is also informative to our readers who will get an industry “snowjob” Re-education effort sooner or later to try and convince them these abusive practices are just fine, because they are commonplace (inference: accepted) in other countries around the world, so they should be acceptable here.

Not. A. Chance.

Even in Australia and New Zealand, usage caps are discussed now as temporary necessities based on fiber backbone connectivity shortages, not as long term “solutions” to usage issues.

But most important of all, we have readers in all of these places, and this site’s universal opposition to Internet Overcharging schemes, and the fight to prevent/reverse them, should be a resource for any reader, no matter where they reside.

Q. Sometimes I am confused by some of the jargon on Stop the Cap! about things like “overbuilders” or “throttles,” etc.  What do these things mean?

A. I have covered the cable and satellite television industry since the late 1980s, so I have become comfortable using a lot of the common language other people in this industry use in everyday speech.  I try and avoid being a regular “jargon” offender, but sometimes these terms will slip through.  I am planning a small FAQ on some of the most commonly used industry phrases in the future.  Suffice to say, you can use Google most of the time to find the meaning of most of the industryspeak while waiting for me to write up a cheat sheet.

An “overbuilder” is a competing cable or telephone provider that invades another company’s turf and places their wiring next to the incumbent provider.  The term usually refers to a competitor using the same type of technology (ie. a second cable company or second phone company), but it doesn’t always get used that way.  It is rare to find an overbuilder in all but the largest cities.  Most communities obtain telecommunications services from one cable company, one phone company, and/or wireless phone/mobile phone providers.

A “throttle” refers, for our purposes, to an Internet provider that wants to reduce traffic on their broadband network.  The operator artificially slows down (or ‘throttles’) the speeds of certain online applications one can identify traveling across the network.  In most cases, this means “peer to peer” services like BitTorrent.  Since these applications can sometimes consume a lot of bandwidth in both directions, some providers want to slow them down so they don’t consume a lot of network resources.

Q. Do your write on any other issues?

A. My personal blog, linked on the right, often covers the cable television industry issues that are not specific to broadband, as well as technology, politics, and personal observations.  ConsumerTel focuses on phone company-specific issues.  Both sites are not updated as often as this one, currently because I am waiting for a major software update from the author of our “theme” (the look and feel and layout) which will test on those sites before launching here, and will require me to rethink some of the layout and format of all of these sites.

Q. What future plans do you have for this site?

A. I am working my way back through older content re-doing a lot of “tags” on our older articles so I can reintroduce a “Related Articles” feature that will highlight some of our earlier content that is related to a topic covered more recently.  For that to work well, tags must be more comprehensive.  I also see our multimedia content here is very popular, and I spend a lot of time locating and embedding that content for our readers.  Our embedded players do not always work well for every browser, so work finding better solutions is also underway.  E-Mail notification of new content is an often requested feature, and one currently being explored.  Adjustments to our theme have already been mentioned, and will also be forthcoming.

But overall, the future of Stop the Cap! depends on what the broadband industry does.  If they abandon Internet Overcharging schemes, stop opposing Net Neutrality, and quit abusing consumers, this site closes down and I get to do something else.  Somehow, I doubt we’ll manage to get all three of these goals.  Our future depends mostly on their behavior in the coming months.