The usually business-friendly editorial page of the Wall Street Journal published a surprising editorial this morning which threatens to cause a tear in the very fabric of space.  Why AT&T Killed Google Voice: Telecom Operators Are Yesterday’s Business — It’s Time for a National Data Policy That Encourages Innovation, strikes at the heart of the telecommunications industry’s business models, and dismisses them as increasingly outdated, anti-innovation and anti-consumer.

Welcome to our world.

Using the example of AT&T’s blocking Google Voice from iPhone users, which would allow them to bypass their AT&T plan to make long distance calls, author Andy Kessler, a former hedge fund manager, believes this was the moment America wakened to the realization that telecommunications companies and government policies block innovation and limit competition.

To that, I have to wonder, where has Kessler been the last decade?

Perhaps the Google Voice debacle impacted him personally, and that got his fur in a ruffle.  What AT&T did represents business as usual for those of us who have seen it all before.

Telecommunications companies have influenced most of the government policies that govern them, using high priced lobbyists, astroturfing friends, and bait and switch promises of magical service at dirt cheap prices, if only their legislative agenda becomes law.

Supporting them are many of the subscribers of the Wall Street Journal, investors and the investment media that tut-tuts new competitors or game-changing innovation that shakes up the marketplace, and launches price wars that threaten shareholder value. Legislation that hampers industry profits or enacts consumer protection is called “government interference” in most WSJ editorials, while deregulation that strips away oversight and ignores the abusive practices common in highly concentrated markets is advocated as the one-size-fits-all “free market solution.”

Apple has an exclusive deal with AT&T in the U.S., stirring up rumors that AT&T was the one behind Apple rejecting Google Voice. How could AT&T not object? AT&T clings to the old business of charging for voice calls in minutes. It takes not much more than 10 kilobits per second of data to handle voice. In a world of megabit per-second connections, that’s nothing—hence Google’s proposal to offer voice calls for no cost and heap on features galore.

What this episode really uncovers is that AT&T is dying. AT&T is dragging down the rest of us by overcharging us for voice calls and stifling innovation in a mobile data market critical to the U.S. economy.

I wonder what Kessler will think if AT&T’s market trials in Beaumont and Reno suggest they can limit his Internet access and then charge overlimit fees per gigabyte thereafter?  AT&T may have a lot more “dragging” capability than he realizes.

Is AT&T dying?  In the traditional wired phone line market, there is evidence they are headed into a slow decline as consumers dump overpriced and overtaxed phone lines for Voice Over IP or mobile phone service.  They certainly aren’t hurting in their mobile phone business.  They’ve become quite comfortable, thank you very much, splitting the majority of mobile telephone customers in the United States with Verizon Wireless.  The companies in real trouble are the smaller players fighting for the scraps thrown from the table — a declining Sprint, T-Mobile, Cricket, MetroPCS, among many others.  They are being told to merge with each other or die by Wall Street.

Is AT&T stifling innovation by being run badly?  Of course not.  They are leveraging their market power to limit potential competition or innovation that forces them into costly upgrades they’d prefer not to do.  With their expensive “public policy” initiatives (read that “K” Street lobbying), they’ve also got a lot of elected officials and government agencies on their side as well.  A Congress that doesn’t demand greater competition, strong antitrust oversight, and a ban on anti-consumer practices, coupled with a bunch of “don’t ask, don’t tell” oversight agencies that only respond to the most egregious abuses (until the media spotlight is turned off), represents the real problem here.

The trick in any communications and media business is to own a pipe between you and your customers so you can charge what you like. Cellphone companies don’t have wired pipes, but by owning spectrum they do have a pipe and pricing power.

True, except Kessler ignores the fact AT&T and Verizon do own wired and wireless pipes, from coast to coast.  Both companies are highly vertically integrated, often serving customers with everything from their basic telephone service to television, broadband, and mobile phone needs.  Customers are heavily marketed to pick up additional product lines from both companies — products not available from the smaller guys like Sprint, T-Mobile, and others.

Kessler also suggests it’s the bidding war for wireless spectrum that results in high prices for consumers.  Even if true, his free market friends would suggest that is the marketplace at work.  Of course, the real reason for high pricing in mobile service is the lack of competition coupled with the convenience of “stable pricing.”  Namely, the current carriers are quite comfortable not rocking the boat too much with one another, which explains why virtually all of them charge comparable prices for wireless data, text messages, and voice plans.  What they will fight for is handset exclusivity, because it never threatens price and service models.  In fact, it allows them to charge even higher premium pricing for highly-sought handsets and the mandatory service plans that sometimes accompany them.  The iPhone is a perfect example of that at work.

Kessler has four prescriptions to cure the American telecommunications ailment:

• End phone exclusivity. Any device should work on any network. Data flows freely.

• Transition away from “owning” airwaves. As we’ve seen with license-free bandwidth via Wi-Fi networking, we can share the airwaves without interfering with each other. Let new carriers emerge based on quality of service rather than spectrum owned. Cellphone coverage from huge cell towers will naturally migrate seamlessly into offices and even homes via Wi-Fi networking. No more dropped calls in the bathroom.

• End municipal exclusivity deals for cable companies. TV channels are like voice pipes, part of an era that is about to pass. A little competition for cable will help the transition to paying for shows instead of overpaying for little-watched networks. Competition brings de facto network neutrality and open access (if you don’t like one service blocking apps, use another), thus one less set of artificial rules to be gamed.

• Encourage faster and faster data connections to our homes and phones. It should more than double every two years. To homes, five megabits today should be 10 megabits in 2011, 25 megabits in 2013 and 100 megabits in 2017. These data-connection speeds are technically doable today, with obsolete voice and video policy holding it back.

An end to phone exclusivity will require government regulation, something unlikely to gain much support from his free market friends.  An even better idea is to stop the cozy relationship between carriers and phone manufacturers by allowing phones to be sold independently, without customers being pressured into two year contracts to enjoy a phone subsidy.  Any phone, sold anywhere, with compatible technology (GSM, CDMA, etc.) should work on any network without a company trying to browbeat customers into contracts, even when bringing along their own phone.  That customer should also be allowed to reprogram their phone to work with another compatible carrier at any time.

Kessler is naive about “owning” airwaves.  Since the government decided it could profit from auctioning them off to the highest bidder, they’ve become monetized and highly valuable.  They are no longer truly licensed in the public interest — they’ve become private property, to be vigilantly protected from encroachment.  Be it satellite, wireless telephony, radio, television, or innovative new services not yet launched, the moment someone applies for a license to share spectrum with existing providers, a chorus of complaints about potential interference arrives at the FCC, with scare stories about potentially massive disruptions.  In reality, the grounds for these hissyfits are more frequently about the fear of competition.

It’s time to admit the concept of airwave auctions has been shortsighted.  While it may bring the government revenue, it will be recouped from consumers as part of provider pricing models.  The higher the bids, the higher the price providers will charge customers for that service.  Let’s consider granting licenses not based on who can bid highest, but rather who can provide the best possible service at reasonable prices to the public.  Those that fail to serve the public interest, or engage in bad behavior, have the very real opportunity of losing that license.  That’s quite an incentive to serve customers first.  It’s such a pro-consumer, novel idea, expect millions of dollars to be spent on lobbying to make sure it never happens.

Municipal exclusivity deals for cable companies ended in 1992 as part of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act (the only bill President George H.W. Bush vetoed that was overridden by Congress).  I know because I was integrally involved in fighting for that legislation.  In the last 17 years, there hasn’t exactly been a rush to wire up communities with competing cable companies, now has there?

Let’s be honest here.  Less regulation will not compel cable competition, no matter how much the astroturfers and special interest lobbyists promise it.  Construction and capital costs to “overbuild” a cable provider in most American cities are high enough to discourage investment from the private sector, particularly when they fear a price war will result and reduce profits, and shareholder value.  Overbuilders like El Grande in Texas had to sell themselves to a more capital-rich company just to find financing to build out their network.

I’m afraid without incentives like tax credits or other benefits, the prevailing attitude is that all but the largest cities will make due with one wired phone company and one wired cable company at best.  Only one major provider has seen fit to rewire their service areas with the most robust technological advancement – fiber to the home.  Verizon has done so, with considerable resistance from investors, in their effort to avoid the obsolescence Kessler foresees in the telephone line business.  But Verizon is only wiring limited areas, primarily in urban areas, but almost never in smaller communities.  For customers of other phone companies, particularly smaller independent providers, too bad for you.  Their only hope may be a publicly financed, or public-private partnership, fiber optic wiring project that acts as a common carrier.  Any provider can deliver their service over it, allowing customers to choose.

Because of the duopoly/monopoly state of cable and broadband service in the United States, Net Neutrality will never be protected through competition.  In Canada, when Bell throttled and interfered with Internet service, most cable competitors simply joined the party and did the same.  When a few upstarts, resold un-throttled Bell wholesale broadband service and made that a selling point, Bell simply throttled them, too, without warning.  That put a stop to that pesky competition problem.  Canada foreshadows what will likely happen in the United States without strong Net Neutrality legislation.

Finally, Kessler’s vision of what is holding back broadband speed totally ignores provider complicity in the slow momentum forward.  While some providers have a progressive attitude about speed, seeing faster broadband’s revenue earning-potential, others see it as an unnecessary expense that most consumers don’t really need.  Time Warner Cable, the nation’s second largest cable company, remains on record as being in no hurry to upgrade to DOCSIS 3 technology, unless one of their competitors threatens to beat their speeds.  In fact, they’ve expressed repeated interest in cost controls by experimenting with ways to limit data consumption, protect their video business model, and extract more revenue from customers at current speeds.

If Kessler was looking to the phone companies for an alternative, most Americans can forget it.  Most phone companies, especially smaller independents, have maintained a death grip on old school DSL technology, which provides 1-3Mbps service in rural areas, and “up to 10Mbps” (if you are very, very lucky) in urban and suburban areas.  They are rapidly losing wired phone customers and are holding out for whatever revenue they can grab from yesterday’s broadband technology, usually doing best only where cable doesn’t compete at all.  Some even want to limit consumption at the slow speeds those networks operate at today.  They are in no hurry to upgrade their existing copper wire networks, much less agree to the “double speed” plan Kessler has.

I’m sorry to say Kessler’s marketplace-based hopes and dreams for a better telecommunications world tomorrow are not forthcoming.  Without radical changes in the current “whatever the providers want is okay with us” regulatory approach we have today, the only innovation Kessler should expect to see is providers finding new ways to charge more money for the same service we have today.

We need a complete review and reality check about the total failure of the deregulation-solves-everything approach we’ve lived under for more than a decade.  If Kessler wants faster speeds, more competition, lower prices, and less market abuse, he will never find it without government involvement.  Remember, in the absence of real competition from those that actually want to compete to win, not just share the healthy proceeds from the status quo, we need stronger arguments than “the free market solves everything” and “won’t you please do it out of the goodness of your heart and civic duty?”

The astroturfers remain hard at work trying to convince conservatives the best way to oppose Obama Administration telecommunications policies would be to adopt industry-friendly views opposing Net Neutrality.

The latest to buy in is The American Spectator, publishing a piece this morning titled, “The Great Regrouping.”  In it, The Prowler casts Net Neutrality as part of the Obama Administration’s plot to impose government controls on the Internet, representing a “grave threat … to free speech and conservatives’ ability to organize and mobilize politically.”

During the last day the House was in session before leaving for its August recess, Rep. Ed Markey’s staff introduced HR 3458, the so-called “Internet Freedom Preservation Act,” which would essentially enable government control of the Internet, treating the networks as a government-managed utility. (For more information about “net neutrality,” read this interview that one of the key “net neutrality” supporters gave to a Canadian socialist publication.) The Markey legislation is considered the last piece of what some conservatives consider to be Democrat and progressive attempts to control the Internet and limit citizens’ ability to use the networks to organize and oppose their agenda.

The bill was introduced the same week it was revealed that the Obama Commerce Department was demanding from the phone and cable companies highly detailed data about private citizens’ Internet and broadband connections as part of plans of “map” broadband networks across the country.

Stop the Cap! readers will recognize the source of the link The Prowler promotes — it’s from the very same Heartland Institute astroturfer we chased last week, who was arguing Net Neutrality was a tool to achieve “socialist utopia.”  I pulled a muscle just reading that overreach.

My direct response can be found below the fold.  Suffice to say, this is an example of classic astroturfing at work:

1. A company’s government affairs department recognizes a potential threat to their business model through government oversight or regulation, or sees a financial benefit from industry-favorable legislation or deregulation.  It considers a range of options, including direct lobbying, consumer outreach, and hiring experienced “inside the beltway” expertise.
2. The company approves a plan of action and frequently hires a Washington-based public relations firm.  That firm usually either has direct contact or close associations with astroturf organizations.  As part of the PR firm’s fee, they assure the company its message will be delivered in ways that help steer any public policy debate towards their corner, using astroturfers to reach both consumers and media suspicious of a direct industry appeal, but will listen to an “independent” group.
3. Suddenly, supposedly independent “public interest” groups start beating the drums.  Some speak directly to consumers raising doubts and fears about regulatory matters, others attempt to suggest the public needs to get behind industry-friendly positions for their own benefit.  Press releases and interview opportunities are made available to the media.  Astroturfers with a known political angle wrap industry positions in ideological shells, using them to illustrate a broader ideological point.
4. Most importantly, carefully avoid exposing the direct industry connection.  Industry executives don’t want to admit they are paying for these campaigns.  PR firms help shield the source of the industry money that flows into astroturf groups, and astroturfers work hard to avoid disclosing where the money is coming from.  Even elected officials who take an industry friendly view do not want to directly reference the companies writing big campaign contribution checks.  They’ll cite those supposedly independent “consulting” and “research” and “public interest” groups when reading the talking points.

Unfortunately for them, this convenient public interest shell game has been exposed.

In today’s case:

Industry opposed to Net Neutrality -> Astroturfer Groups -> Outreach to fuel opposition to Net Neutrality for “consumer” or “ideological” reasons.

… Continue Reading

While researching some stories this afternoon, I spoke with an executive at one of the major broadband providers serving consumers with Internet service who told me the company was simply tearing its proverbial hair out over how much online video services like Hulu were costing them — at least $1-2 per gigabyte.  He also said it was putting serious strain on their broadband network.  He didn’t agree to go “on record” putting his name with his views because he was not authorized by company officials to do so, but he was well armed with talking points that said online video is such a problem, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand couldn’t take it any longer and they adopted usage allowances to limit customers watching Hulu and other online video services “like from the BBC.”

These Amateur Hour talking points written at company headquarters will work with a bobblehead-like nodding reporter at a local station getting a 10 second unchallenged sound bite, but they don’t work here.

My industry friend didn’t agree to be on the record, so he’ll remain anonymous, but the points raised are on the record so here we go:

Myth: Hulu is costing broadband providers a ton of money – at least $1-2 per gigabyte.

Truth: Hulu, and other online video services like it, do generate a considerable amount of broadband traffic in the United States.  That online video has posed a potential threat to my provider friend, who faces the prospect of some consumers deciding to disconnect their cable TV service and stick solely with broadband for online video.  However, my friend ignores the fact his company has a way to solve this traffic issue by considering upgrades to DOCSIS 3 technology.  After all, his bosses are actively seeking a way into the online video marketplace themselves.

His employer is testing an online video delivery platform that could easily dwarf Hulu.  Of course, they don’t happen to own or control Hulu, open to any American.  The establishment of an industry-controlled service, available exclusively only to “authenticated” subscribers, really blows the talking point about online video straining their broadband network out of the water.  If Hulu is threatening to do them in, what do they think will happen when their even bigger endeavor launches for millions of users?  Then again, as I told him, such online video drives new subscriptions and they could always take some of that money and invest it in network expansion.

Dave Burstein, a well regarded expert on broadband networks, who writes DSL Prime, obliterates the cost estimate inflation for online video in a short piece titled, HD Video Delivered: 5-8 U.S. cents per hour (SD – 2-4 cents):

Microsoft, Cachelogic and I demo’ed full 6 megabit HD video over the net at Web Video Summit, and the stars are now aligned for HD to become first practical and then common – unless the carriers succeed in taxing the net outrageously. That’s cheap enough that even HD TV over the net can be supported by ads, and it becomes a no-brainer for any movie service that charges to offer true HD.

Dan Rayburn, the guru of the streaming media world, reports “The lowest price I saw in Q1 was two and a half cents per GB delivered for over 500TB of traffic a month. When I questioned many of the major CDNs about this price, nearly all of them told me they don’t price delivery that low, but the contracts say otherwise. That price is not the norm as 500TB a month in delivery is a very large customer.” Repeat: This is not a typical price, even at that large volume. Dan reports more normal prices are 2-4 times this level. So U.S. cents 15-25 is more typical for full HD.

Hulu doesn’t even specialize in HD video programming, so the $1-2 per gigabyte estimate on that talking points handout apparently mistakes a dollar sign for a cents sign.

Myth: Online video is such a problem, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand adopted usage allowances to limit customers watching Hulu and other online video services “like from the BBC.”

Truth: My industry friend is apparently unaware Hulu restricts access to the majority of its content outside of the United States.  If you are watching from Canada, Australia, or South Africa, you’re more likely to encounter an error message telling you this content is not licensed for your area.  I’m not sure how that is supposed to impact on overseas ISPs.  The BBC’s iPlayer not only doesn’t provide broadband video content outside of pre-authorized UK-based Internet Service Providers, it offers lower quality streams outside of the UK for what content is available.  It’s a very common complaint heard by the BBC, but they do not have the resources to offer high bandwidth streaming to the entire world.

Most broadband providers won’t use the word “limit” when it comes to controlling subscribers’ access, because that puts them right in the line of fire.  It’s always been our contention that this is about protecting business models and less about “costs.”

There are tremendous differences between online video content services in the United States versus Canada or other usage-capped countries.  In New Zealand, online video services have been shut down because of usage limits.  In Canada, Australia, and South Africa, they’ve never truly gotten off the ground because “bit caps” make them unsustainable.

South Africa this week celebrated the opening of a new underseas cable to bring additional global connectivity to the continent of Africa.  Broadband service in South Africa today has very little video content at all – usage caps are punishingly low across the region because unlike in the USA, international connectivity has traditionally been obscenely expensive.  Many South African ISPs distinguish themselves by placing heavier limits on sites hosted outside of the country than on those hosted domestically, a nod to the connectivity reality.

The truth is that some ISPs in the United States are looking for arguments to justify Internet Overcharging to maintain high profits and keep demand in check.  Consumers are not buying these industry talking points at any price.

In a sorry development, Canada’s telecommunications regulator, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, today issued a rubber stamp approval of Bell’s proposal to impose Usage Based Billing and overlimit fees and penalties for “excessive use.”

The CRTC apparently breezed its way through Bell’s application, deciding it sounded good enough for them, and made only minor adjustments.  The CRTC’s short-sighted consumer protection angle was to demand that before Bell implemented any Internet Overcharging scheme on its wholesale customers (using the Gateway Access Service), namely those who purchase connectivity to provide independent ISP service to Canadians, they must first stick it to their own retail customers.

Like that represented a problem.

The Commission  approves on an interim basis the Bell companies’ proposed two new Gateway Access Service (GAS) speed options and rates. The Commission also approves on an interim basis their proposal to introduce UBB for GAS, effective 90 days from the date of this order.  The Commission further approves on an interim basis their proposal to introduce an excessive usage charge for GAS of $0.75 per GB in excess of 300 GB, effective the date the Bell companies notify the Commission in writing that they apply an excessive usage charge of $1.00 per GB in excess of 300 GB to all their retail customers on UBB plans.

After all, if you are going to overcharge some people for broadband access, why not overcharge them all!

Bell serves both the wholesale needs of independent service providers and retail consumers subscribing to DSL service.  Last year, Bell suddenly began throttling the speeds of their wholesale customers without notification, killing a major marketing benefit independent providers offered potential subscribers – a non-throttled broadband experience.  The remaining independent service providers that compete against Bell and many cable companies in Canada by offering unlimited access now find that marketing angle also rapidly becoming unavailable.  Such actions benefit the larger providers by making independents uncompetitive and force Canadians into all of the classic Internet Overcharging schemes, with no alternatives.

The result has been outrage by Canadians who have discovered, yet again, the CRTC represents the interests of large corporate telecommunications companies and not the common sense needs of ordinary Canadians for affordable, open Internet access.  While the CRTC continues to act like the cable and telephone industry’s BFF, Canada’s former leadership in broadband rankings continues its rapid deterioration, falling further and further behind other industrialized countries, all for the benefit of providers and their profits.

The CRTC remains impotent in promoting effective competition and consumer-friendly policies.  Broadband Reports notes that may be by design. Many staffers at the CRTC have past histories with the providers they are supposed to independently regulate.  They point specifically to vice-chairman Leonard Katz, whose amazing lack of consumer concern may partly result from his more pressing need to consider the interests of his former employers – Rogers Cable (17 years) and Bell (11 years).

Canadians can and must demand an end to the CRTC-Telecom Industry Friendship Festival that seems to be ongoing at their expense.  Contact your member of Parliament and demand some top to bottom changes in regulatory policy that are front and center focused on the needs of Canadian consumers, not on the interests of a handful of big telecom companies.  An investigation into possible conflict of interest is also warranted.  Exactly how many CRTC staffers come to the agency from the companies that are regulated by it, and how many find nice jobs waiting for them at those companies when they leave government service?

Stop the Cap! readers have seen the differences in broadband pricing between Japan and the United States.  The CRTC approval of Bell’s request makes a bad situation even worse across Canada, particularly in areas where there are no alternatives to Bell’s DSL service.

How low can they go?

Tim Karr from Free Press dropped me a note alerting me that the Heartland Institute had responded to the comments from both Karl Bode at Broadband Reports and myself in regards to their transparent anti-consumer Net Neutrality is Bad position the telecommunications industry and their fellow astroturfing friends have been spouting as of late.

Free Press occasionally reprints some of our content on the Save the Internet! blog, which I always appreciate.  But James Lakely wanted to take issue with several points, so the cross-blog debate begins.  Free Press has already responded, but now it’s my turn.  The quoted sections come from Lakely’s piece:

The general theme of the responses is: Government regulation always good, wise and beneficial; the market responding to consumers’ needs always nefarious, short-sighted and harmful. It goes without saying that we here at The Heartland Institute disagree. And here are my rebuttals to the rebuttals.

My rebuttal to the rebuttals to the rebuttals begins with calling out this sweeping generalization which actually doesn’t represent my view at all.  In fact, it’s wildly against what I believe personally.

Government regulation is not always good.  In fact, I’d like to see as little government regulation as possible.  I’d prefer robust, healthy competition on a level playing field, because as a consumer (and this site is 100% consumer, with absolutely zero industry/special interest money) I and my friends stand to benefit from that.  But unlike my “free market is always right” friends who cannot say they are 100% free of industry/special interest money, I also recognize that in the absence of a healthy, free market, the abuses are sure to follow without oversight.  And they have.

Let’s be honest.  The broadband industry in the United States is a duopoly for most Americans.  One telephone company and one cable company.  Wi-Fi and wireless broadband service remains either unavailable, uncompetitive from a pricing standpoint, or heavily limited by usage caps.

Since the late 1990s, the choice for broadband has been simple – DSL from the phone company or a cable modem from the cable company.  Pricing competition for most comes only for new customers in the form of promotional sign-up offers that quickly expire.

The marketplace has been stable for a decade with the business model of DSL competing mildly on price, a recognition of its often slower speed service, and cable bashing the phone company over the head for not offering “blazing fast speeds” and charges slightly more to deliver them.

Customers have made choices accordingly.  When a customer doesn’t care about a speed race, gets a competitive bundle offer from the phone company throwing in something like a free netbook, and still has phone service from their local phone company, DSL can make sense for them.  For those who want the fastest speeds, already dumped the phone company for a cable “digital phone” product, and got an attractively priced bundle offer from the local cable company, they’re likely using a cable modem.  For a lot of Americans in rural areas it’s “take whatever you can get.”

That marketplace worked well for a decade for more populated areas with the loudest clamoring for any change coming from underserved rural areas just looking for any broadband service.

Then things began to change.  In November 2005, SBC-AT&T decided it wanted to change the model.  Instead of providing connectivity for customers, they decided there was more money to be made by doing away with the founding model of the Internet — providers treating all traffic equally — and pondered forcing content providers to pay for transporting that traffic across their “pipes.”  Companies with no business relationship with AT&T were told they could no longer use “AT&T’s pipes for free.”  Now, under AT&T’s new model, if they wanted assurances of fast speed to their customers, those independent providers would have to pony up.

That sounded like a grand idea to Wall Street who trumpeted the potential earnings enhancements a new revenue stream would provide, and several other service providers with dollar signs in their eyes yelled “me too, me too!”

Predictably, some of the loudest outrage about this came from consumers — the ISP’s own customers.  They had the apparently-mistaken notion that they were paying for broadband service to build and maintain a network to serve their needs for fast, reliable, broadband service for any site they visited.  Apparently not.  Consumers were often unmoved by a lobbying effort that suggested other big corporations were raking in profits on the backs of service providers “forced” to deliver their traffic.  Good old common sense speaks volumes.  Consumers don’t want their Internet service throttled, or see the content they want to access fiddled with just to fatten industry profits.  The industry didn’t listen to consumers and are back yet again fighting Net Neutrality legislation.

The reason for the fight against Net Neutrality is simple: companies answer first and foremost to their shareholders, the supporting culture of Wall Street analysts and the media that trumpets their views.  Short term results matter more than long term strategies.  Monetizing broadband traffic, a growth industry to be sure, was a golden opportunity, even if the companies originating the traffic already pay hosting companies to deliver it.

From there, the story is always the same.  In a healthy, competitive market, abusive practices are checked when customers flee a provider that stops listening to them.  In a duopoly or limited competitive market, with reduced risk of customer defection, and in the absence of any other force to check unrestrained behavior, customer opinion becomes a low second in importance.  It is the government that provides the necessary oversight and protection mechanism from market abuse running wild.  Oversight does not limit competition.  It can actually encourage it.

The players have assembled:

• Consumers like myself who are fed up with the abusive practices some bad actors in the broadband industry are engaged in and have no reason to obfuscate, lie, or hide the facts;
• Providers like cable and telephone companies that actively lobby to keep regulation and oversight at bay in hopes of continuing their free-wheeling ways, even if it harms consumers;
• Lobbyists and astroturfing organizations that receive a substantial amount of funding from those providers to bolster industry opinions on issues, create fictional, biased studies to prove industry theories, and whose very existence relies on the generosity of the corporations that pay their expenses;
• Employees of astroturf organizations whose paycheck comes from “sharing” the same positions on issues as their benefactors, and whose credibility would fall seriously into question should the direct financial link between providers and their paid mouthpieces be exposed to the public.

The most absurd part of this play is that I, as a consumer, am paying for all of it, and am the only one in the group not getting anything from it.  Providers are paid. Lobbyists are paid. Astroturfing groups are paid.  Mr. Lakely is paid.  I am not paid.  In the end, that makes me the guy that can walk down any street day or night and never fear that someone driving by will roll their window down and ask “how much?”

Pretend? C’mon. By even the Federal Communications Commission’s own research, the vast majority of consumers in this country have several choices of broadband providers. I have AT&T’s DSL service, a technology that is fine for me (at the moment), but is largely considered pedestrian. Cable is better. And fiber is better still. If I’m living in a fictional world, I’d love to ask the author of my fate for a few revisions — none of which has anything to do with how fast my connection is.

Most Americans have the following choices for broadband service:

1. Cable company
2. Telephone company (DSL or fiber in limited areas)
3. Clearwire WiMax (significant ownership interest by cable and mobile/cellular industry)
4. Mobile broadband (owned by cellular industry)

Cable and telephone companies are the two wired providers capable of providing broadband at the fastest speeds.  Clearwire WiMax is being leveraged by the cable industry to offer wireless broadband to their existing customers.  What are the chances Clearwire is going to bash their cable investors while competing for customers?  Mobile broadband remains useful only for web browsing and e-mail because of onerous usage caps, speed issues, and pricing (which virtually every provider sets at the same level: $50/5GB per month).  I didn’t even bother with satellite, because current providers offer service only slightly better than dial-up when used in real world conditions.

Your choice in broadband technology has everything to do with speed.  In “broadband backwaters” where competition is exceptionally light and increasingly in areas where a fiber or advanced DSL product is not forthcoming, there is simply no competitive pressure to increase speeds no matter how loudly customers demand them.

The horror! ISPs earn “healthy profits” by providing a desirable service. It is here that Free Press and the rest of the net neutrality crowd reveal an ingrained anti-capitalist sentiment. We’re to believe that an ISP, earning healthy profits (which please both the company and its shareholders) are upset that demand for their services increases. In response, they do not see a great opportunity to expand their business and attract even more customers, but to “actively reduce investment.”

No. Instead the logical response is to be “neglectful,” and let rival ISPs in an ultra-competitive market swoop in and steal away their disaffected customers. That makes no sense to anyone who has any knowledge of how free market capitalism works. Verizon announced in 2006 that it planned to invest $18 billion in building out its fiber ViOS product by 2010. Why? Because it wants to (gasp!) pursue profits by serving more and more customers. I could care less about Verizon’s business plan — other than to note that without any government funding or “plan,” it seems to be moving quickly to bring more broadband options to more people.

The only thing Lakely avoids in this dramatic overreach is calling me a “socialist.”

Two important points here.  Lakely should take his free market crash course to companies like Time Warner Cable who are doing exactly what he proclaims makes no sense:  Broadband customers up.  Demand for bandwidth up.  Investment to upgrade networks to handle increased demand… down!

Lakely’s mistake is to assume that free market capitalism is always benevolent towards consumer interests, presuming they are first on the minds of providers when making any strategic changes in their business plans.  But, for those who have lived under a throttled and capped broadband regime, like in Canada, or those in four American cities that were to be subjected to an unwarranted, unwanted pricing “experiment” on the part of Time Warner Cable to engage in all of the classic Internet Overcharging schemes – usage caps, consumption billing, overlimit penalties and fees, what the consumer wanted was completely irrelevant to the provider.

Time Warner Cable answers to investors, who howl over increased capital and upgrade costs in a normal economy.  In this one, spending on virtually anything is scrutinized.  Indeed, Wall Street even shudders at the thought of financing a competitor’s efforts to overbuild into another provider’s service area because it might launch a price war — a disaster for the Wall Street guy even if it’s a boon for consumers.

Lakely brings up Verizon, but leaves out the hostile reception many on Wall Street continue to have about the construction of that fiber optic network they call overspending:

FiOS has been very popular with consumers because it offers faster Internet service, more high-definition video channels and more bells and whistles than most cable systems. But Mr. Moffett’s argument is that what is good for customers is not good for investors.

“If I were an auto dealer and I wanted to give people a Maserati for the price of a Volkswagen, I’d have some seriously happy customers,” said Craig Moffett, an analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein. “My problem would be whether I could earn a decent return doing it.”

Verizon thinks so, but has to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to convince short-term-thinking investors and skeptical darlings of the Wall Street media like Moffett that serving your customers with excellent service keeps them as loyal customers generating reliable returns.

Other companies, like Time Warner Cable, are much less interested in “seriously happy customers” when it launched its “experiment.”  Of course, it limited its exposure by choosing markets where customers lacked a safety valve alternative providing equal levels of service.  In Rochester, Frontier Communications retains a 5GB usage limit in their Acceptable Use Policy (currently not enforced) for broadband service and relies on traditional DSL service.  In other nearby cities from Buffalo to Syracuse, and further downstate, Verizon FiOS is merrily wiring fiber optic service that does not have hostile customer policies, much faster service, and subscribers can freely switch.

When “experimenting,” it’s probably safer to choose a market that doesn’t have a powerful company like Verizon just waiting to pounce.

Where lower speed DSL prevails and the upgrade frenzy is nowhere to be found, it’s been much easier to simply maintain the same service year after year.  No major upgrades.  No market-changing shakeups.  Just keep cashing the checks.

In some communities in the United States, such as Wilson in North Carolina, the duopoly simply refused to upgrade service no matter how often people begged and pleaded.  The city finally decided to run a bond issue to finance the construction of their own municipal fiber optic network, and the incumbent providers did two things — try and stop it at all costs, and when that failed, finally made plans to upgrade their own networks to compete.

Lakely and I do agree: competition is wonderful.  But I always add “when it exists.”

What happens when that competition doesn’t appear is an issue Lakely prefers to tap dance around, misstating my own position in hopes his readers won’t notice:

Super. Hurray! I wish the petitioners luck. But why, in a free-market economy, must the government force Verizon to “overbuild” in Rochester? Or why is it essential that taxpayer money be used to fulfill the wishes of some Rochester petitioners?

No reader here has ever seen me advocate the government “force” Verizon to overbuild my community.  In fact, I’ve always been skeptical Verizon could be attracted to compete here legislatively or with $10 bribes would-be customers mail to Verizon corporate offices to show there is demand here.  That’s because the telecommunications industry is loathe to overbuild in someone else’s territory.  Phone companies and cable companies will nominally compete, but two traditional phone companies and two cable companies going head to head is something else.  Nor have I advocated taxpayer money be given to Verizon to build a network in Rochester.  In fact, it’s the providers themselves who want the government handouts without oversight of what they do with that money.  By the way, does the Heartland Institute oppose broadband stimulus funding?

The tapdance continues when Lakely attempts to connect two different ideas to suggest they are contradictory:

There’s a lot to unpack from Dampier’s post, including the following contradictory passages:

The only thing Net Neutrality protects IS the status quo, a free and open Internet.

Followed shortly by …

… in a world without codified Net Neutrality protections — the free market at work under today’s reality — we’re seeing continued evidence of price increases and a decline in investment in networks, and some providers continue to drag their feet on upgrades.

So which is it? Is “today’s reality” worth preserving? (My view.) Or are government controls needed to protect the “status quo.” Can’t really have it both ways — unless your not really being clear about what it is you advocate.

Nice try.  A law codifying Net Neutrality protects the free flow of traffic on the Internet tomorrow from the “monetize and control everything” mentality customers are already fighting providers about on pricing and usage limits today.

A foreshadowing of broadband service in America without Net Neutrality principles protected by law can be found in Canada.  Do as Lakely suggests and it’s only a matter of time before broadband providers begin throttling speeds of undesirable online applications, favor traffic from paid content partners over those who didn’t pay for that privilege, and use traffic management to delay necessary infrastructure upgrades to meet the needs of paying customers.  Customers will discover “blazing fast speeds” only from those websites that ponied up the money to guarantee that.  In short, an online protection racket.

Provider mentality under “the free market at work under today’s reality” tells the story of what broadband customers are facing today in this country — Internet Overcharging schemes, astroturfing propaganda efforts to bolster claims that “controls” are necessary to balance traffic, and financial reports illustrating a pervasive lack of willingness by some providers to upgrade their networks.  All this makes selling those “controls” to a frustrated public waiting for a web page to display much easier.

Be it trying to fiddle with the traffic passing through a network, or overcharging for access to it, the only reason consumers are increasingly calling for government oversight and protection is because providers have engaged in practices which demand such a response.

And those who want to impose their vision of how the Internet should work under the guise of “net neutrality” want to change it. I don’t think they make a very good argument for messing with a market that has brought the world the online wonders we take for granted.

Lakely has it entirely backwards.  The Internet’s vision has, since inception, been one where legal content traveled freely without foe or favor.  It was the providers that sought to change the “vision” (or as they would see it, their “business model”).  Lakely and I agree that the Internet has brought online wonders we take for granted.  But I know that is threatened when providers decide to control and monetize it.  That’s about as acceptable as charging your aunt in San Francisco for a long distance call you made at your own expense, all because it traveled across the phone company’s wires.

Although Lakely did some pretty serious taffy pulling to stretch my arguments to fit his premise, his most recent hit piece on Free Press was a site to behold:

McChesney is an avowed socialist/Marxist. Through Free Press, he is promoting an agenda that would replace the free market system that has led to once-unimaginable advances in information technology — including freedom of communication — with a state-controlled system directed by government on behalf of “the people.” In short: McChesney and Free Press see the Internet as the last, best realm to finally usher in the long-dreamed socialist utopia.

Establish net neutrality principles by force of law, and the socialist/Marxist revolution (at least online) is underway.

Part two will follow shortly.  Stay tuned.

Oooh, can’t wait for that.  (Make sure you throw in some Hugo Chavez references.  No self respecting “socialism under every rock” rant is worth reading without some Chavez sprinkles on top.) I just hope Lakely gets it written before he and his industry friends get their way.  Otherwise, he’ll discover providers at his door demanding some ‘scratch’ to protect the Heartland Institute’s position as a “preferred content partner.”

What I am sure really upsets Lakely and his astroturf friends is that the Internet has allowed individuals to determine the merit and value of content based on its quality and integrity, not based on how much money is blasted into the amplification process.  The proof of this in action exists right here, right now.  Stop the Cap!, funded by me out of my own pocket and run in my spare time, with the help of other consumers volunteering to contribute their own content here, can stand toe to toe with an industry-funded Heartland Institute trying to create a right-left divide on an issue that is neither.

That leaves groups like theirs forced to respond to ordinary consumers like myself capable of blowing astroturf fluff out of the water with the most basic research and application of common sense.  To think, a consumer website without the six or possibly even seven figure annual budget astroturf groups blow through can get as much attention and exposure as even the most well-financed industry propaganda festivals, all because of a free and open Internet.

That burns up the special interests to no end.  That’s not a people-powered “socialist utopia.”  That’s consumers fighting for their rights, organizing consumer-powered activism, and taking on, and hopefully eventually taking out, the special interest lobbyists that work against our best interests, and are well paid for doing so.  No wonder Net Neutrality represents a threat so serious, it can provoke rhetoric invoking the Red Scare.