Rottenchester, a Stop the Cap! regular reader, discovered an impenetrable recipe for comprehension disaster in an online essay entitled, The Government, Road Runner, and David Letterman: A Farce in Three Acts.  Written by Susan Edelman, who has a Ph.D. in Economics from Stanford University and was an economist at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Department of Defense, the essay remarkably tries to present a broader point about government involvement in broadband, Road Runner Internet Overcharging, outrage at David Letterman for his comments about Sarah Palin, and government intrusion in our lives.

It’s a taffy pull thesis I don’t have the courage to attempt, and I was left completely mystified about what the takeaway message was.

WHAT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO, AND ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT THIS?
The assertion that Americans having a right to reasonably priced Broadband service.  This might be a good idea, and is in accord with the treatment of other types of transmission lines.  But do not kid yourself:  this would be the creation of another government-enforced right.  Only government can create and enforce rights.  But isn’t government incompetent?  And doesn’t private business do everything right without government meddling?. (And while you are thinking about this, keep in mind that all Americans do not have the right to reasonably priced health care. )

Edelman rapidly risks losing her argument by default, because most readers are likely not to understand it.  Having been involved in the Road Runner Affair since it began in April, she has lost me, and I have lived and breathed this issue for months.  One potential interpretation of her argument might be is the apparent irony of many conservative Rochester residents calling out the Obama Administration in the pages of the local newspaper with reflexive government=bad and free market=good arguments.  Perhaps in her eyes, many of these same people called out in those same pages for regulatory government relief from abusive broadband pricing.

If so, two points:

1)  I honestly believe most people will not ponder her piece long enough to ferret out a takeaway message.

2) There is no evidence the “free marketeers” were the ones reacting with outrage over Time Warner Cable’s experiment gone wild (and then shelved for now.)  In fact, as soon as Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) got involved, the editorial feedback pages in the local media from conservatives, along with some local conservative talk radio, rapidly turned the issue of Internet Overcharging into a Senator Schumer Bashing Party.  I have no doubt some of those not closely following the issue automatically adopted the opposite position Schumer had just because of their passionate dislike of him.

Most consumers, in my experience, rightly treated this issue as above the usual right-left tug of war.  That’s because overcharging for broadband isn’t a right or left issue.  It’s a consumer issue.  The conservative thinkers appreciate the strong push towards forcing additional competition in the marketplace.  Those with a politically liberal philosophy aren’t opposed to competition, but want the extra security of government oversight and/or regulation where competition does not exist.

It’s my personal view that telecommunications policy is complex enough without dragging David Letterman and Sarah Palin into it.

Phillip Dampier

While western New York was dealing with a rare bout of tornadoes, another storm began brewing online when AT&T customers discovered their access to a website devoted to the posting of images, 4chan, had been blocked.

The 4chan site has become notorious over the past year for its “anything goes” policies about content, particularly in its “random board” /b/. The site has generated a number of controversies, including staged pranks, swarming other websites, and unfortunately, occasional malicious activity by a minority of its users. Since the site permits anonymous posting, and has traditionally been more “self-regulating” than moderated, it’s a polar opposite of most corporate-run online communities.

When 4chan enthusiasts discovered their site was being blocked by AT&T, it represented the online equivalent of of course, you know this means war. AT&T was blasted in the blogosphere, called out by some tech-minded online culture websites, and made a virtual pawn in the Net Neutrality debate. A few angry 4chan enthusiasts even set up a “rioting/’war’/protest” site to launch counteraction against AT&T.

AT&T eventually admitted it was blocking the site for “security reasons” and issued two early statements:

CentralGadget:

AT&T has confirmed that they are “currently blocking portions of the internet site 4chan.org”, but states that they are “following the practices of their policy department.”

AT&T went on to say that they did contact (or, at least, attempted to contact, they wouldn’t clarify) the owners of 4chan. They say that they have specific reasons why they blocked these parts of the site, but they would not disclose them to CentralGadget.com. AT&T states that they have requested specific things and changes from 4chan’s owners, and that 4chan has not complied.

Regardless, without a clear explanation of specific rationale for blocking 4chan… both 4chan and CentralGadget.com encourage you to continue calling AT&T technical support, and filing your complaints there (escalate as high as possible, we have heard reports that Tier 1 support agents are being told to incorrectly state that AT&T doesn’t block any web site).

Broadband Reports:

Beginning Friday, an AT&T customer was impacted by a denial-of-service attack stemming from IP addresses connected to img.4chan.org. To prevent this attack from disrupting service for the impacted AT&T customer, and to prevent the attack from spreading to impact our other customers, AT&T temporarily blocked access to the IP addresses in question for our customers. This action was in no way related to the content at img.4chan.org; our focus was on protecting our customers from malicious traffic.

Overnight Sunday, after we determined the denial-of-service threat no longer existed, AT&T removed the block on the IP addresses in question. We will continue to monitor for denial-of-service activity and any malicious traffic to protect our customers.

Since the end of the weekend, access to 4chan has been restored by AT&T, but the site is performing slowly as it presumably gets attention from a large number of visitors who learned of the site from the controversy, but never heard of it before Sunday.

AT&T’s clumsy explanation fired up a new chapter in the Net Neutrality debate, with various groups and 4chan enthusiasts, and even the DailyKos website, calling this an example of a violation of Net Neutrality — providers denying equal access to all website traffic regardless of its source.

Unfortunately, this is much more an instance of jumping the gun.  Indeed, there is credible evidence 4chan, in addition to its free-wheeling atmosphere, also attracts quite a few malicious attacks, presumably from disgruntled members of the site.  “Denial of service attacks” which throw limitless requests at a web server to slow it down until it essentially crashes under the jamming traffic load, are not uncommon on 4chan.

AT&T’s technical team claims it placed blocks on the impacted IP address(es) to keep the traffic from impacting their own network, and the issue blew up only when AT&T’s non technical customer support staff did a poor job of explaining what was going on to customers.  There are also an open question whether AT&T needed to block -all- traffic on its network to 4chan, or whether blocking just the offending portion would have been sufficient.

Assuming the facts are in AT&T’s favor, and other ISPs have confirmed the attack as being authentic, this is less a case of Net Neutrality abuse, but rather standard procedure at most web hosting companies and service providers to contend with denial of service attacks and other malicious activity.  The hosting providers that provide service to Stop the Cap! engage in the same practices.  One of the hosting companies we use once shut off access to a group of websites it hosted to deal with an attack on just one website.  Once the targeted site was isolated and traffic blocks placed, service resumed for everyone else.  When the attacks were stopped or blocked by other providers down the line, service for the targeted site resumed as well.

But AT&T is not blameless.  A major national ISP like AT&T should have had a rapid and clear response ready for inquiring customers about the 4chan matter.  It was the absence of information initially, and the poorly phrased statements later that created the feeding frenzy of online speculation.

There is a thin line between “network management” policies that deal with malicious traffic and its impact on customers on one side and disingenuously labeling high bandwidth uses of its network (peer to peer, etc.) as requiring “network management” of its own (throttles, etc.).  Historically network technicians have always been given latitude to protect their employer’s network from purposely malicious traffic like “botnets,” “spam servers,” and “denial of service attacks.” They should continue to have that latitude until such time they are shown to be abusing it.

4chan’s own internal policies, and their unwillingness to control some user excesses, also make it very difficult to rush to their defense, particularly when the site owner acknowledges many of those excesses.

There are many legitimate battles to be fought for Net Neutrality.  An ISP dealing with a denial of service attack, barring any new evidence that credibly challenges AT&T’s response, should not be one of them.

Blair Levin, broadband czar

Blair Levin is a broadband czar with a lot on his mind, and he unloaded a lot of it at a public conference this week.  He’s been spending his summer wading into more than 8,500 pages of comments the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received on the question of how to formulate a national broadband plan.  Individual consumers using the submission form like a blog’s comment section was the least of his concerns.  Levin has grown far less optimistic about the value of the comments as he digs deep into the pile before him.  His conclusion: at least some of the companies and groups that can afford the most expensive lawyers and professional presentations essentially pulled off an all-nighter let’s-wing-it-effort.

Levin particularly called out a “large telco” that submitted an extensive paper promoting its position loaded with intellectual sloppiness, right down to including a slide that contradicted the phone company’s own arguments.

Levin also claimed a lot of the submissions were loaded with platitudes and consensus about a model broadband society everyone would like to see, with no road map to actually achieve that goal.

The broadband czar reserved special criticism for the locust-like lobbyists who have descended on the comment process with self-serving proposals that are crafted with a “mine first” mentality that cuts out other players.  Levin claimed providers are much more interested in protecting their existing market and business plans before they consider how changes in the marketplace can increase the number of customers available to them.  That’s a mentality consumers are familiar with as broadband providers attempt to protect their video business models with attempts to limit or overcharge for broadband access.

He was upset that plans to open up new spectrum for next generation broadband services were met with resistance from other providers.  Wireless spectrum expansion for broadband projects was promoted as “essential” in one proposal, and attacked as a dangerous threat in another.  Levin characterized the turf war as, “get [the spectrum] from somebody else.”

Many of the major providers are treating the national broadband plan as a giant piggy bank, waiting to shower them with cash for vague projects or goals.  “Look I’ve got to say this — we are not going to be Santa Claus,” Levin said. “There’s actually very little in the 8,500-something pages that moves the ball forward,” Levin said.

Consumer advocacy group Free Press, which submitted an extensive pro-consumer broadband plan of its own, which Stop the Cap! supports, agreed with much of what Levin complained about in a new filing today, in response to Levin’s remarks.

Derek Turner, Free Press

Derek Turner, research director at Free Press, said “the FCC should not be duped by the incumbents’ self-serving claims. The national broadband plan must be built on a record of meaningful data and analysis — not on flimsy evidence and discredited arguments.”

Turner was pointing to telecommunications lobbying policies which reach not only the FCC, but elected officials.

Indeed, they are repeats of the same mantra over and over — “deregulation.”

“Incumbents have the largest pool of resources and broadband data at their fingertips, but their comments offer nothing more than the same old tired pro-deregulation arguments. It is clear from their recommendations that the phone and cable companies want the national broadband plan to simply be a ‘do-nothing’ plan — a strategy that has already proven to be an epic failure for consumers,” Turner added.

Incumbent carriers keep that pool of resources and data close to their vests, refusing to make it widely available for detailed independent analysis.  Instead, their “government affairs” lobbyists engage in astroturfing efforts to hoodwink consumers and policymakers with biased data and maps that help sell their agenda of deregulation and public financing of needed broadband projects, with little or no oversight or conditions.  Most important, they universally characterize today’s broadband offerings as excellent and evidence that the “marketplace is working,” even as the United States falls further behind other nations in access, speed, and low pricing.

While Levin is right to be exasperated at the special interest folderol, the FCC’s previous hands-off attitude during the Clinton and Bush Administrations set the stage for the ballet being performed today.  A deregulatory framework, started by the Clinton Administration and embraced on entirely new levels by the Bush Administration, combined with an agency timid to get involved in oversight potentially raising the ire of Congress, made it possible for 8,500 pages of generic happy talk and thinly disguised grant applications to weigh heavily on his desk.

Caught in the middle, as usual, are consumers.  Most of them were the ones typing their comments into the FCC comments submission page in “the big box,” instead of uploading a professionally prepared multi-hundred page PDF document.  Their needs are simple: affordable, fast, widespread broadband, with Net Neutrality embraced and Internet Overcharging schemes banned.  For those who already have the service, they want the FCC to make sure providers don’t leverage their monopoly or duopoly into a Money Party.  For those who don’t, they simply wonder how the most powerful country on earth cannot “get it done” without 8,500 pages and hundreds of millions of dollars potentially flushed away to feed special interest coffers while their needs are ignored or met with “this is good enough service for you” condescension.

Of course, no matter what Levin thinks, a lot of those providers with mixed up slides and Red Bull fueling their all-nighters know the FCC doesn’t have the last word on anything.  They’ll take the dog and pony show straight to Congress, with checks in hand to lubricate the conversation. Making sure Congress ultimately listens to their constituents will be up to voters like you and I.

The Internet Innovation Alliance claims to advocate for consumer interests, but has telecom backing.

The Internet Innovation Alliance released a report Tuesday telling you what you already know (thanks to Stop the Cap! reader ‘Bones’ for sending the link):

(1) Consumers receive more than $30 billion of net benefits from the use of fixed line broadband at home, with broadband increasingly being perceived as a necessity;
(2) With even higher speed, broadband would provide consumers even greater benefits – at minimum an additional $6 billion per year;
(3) Significant broadband adoption gaps exist between various groups of households;
(4) Among those who are connected to broadband at home, there is no significant valuation gap based on race, although there are valuation gaps along other lines;
(5) The total economic benefits of broadband are significantly larger than our estimates of the consumer benefits from home broadband.

Astroturf Thursday

In simpler terms, the IIA did a study that discovered consumers value broadband in dollar amounts higher than they currently pay for it.  To the general media, it will be interpreted as evidence that broadband is wonderful in the United States and may be underpriced.  That’s music to the ears of providers, who also study the gap between what a consumer would be willing to pay for a product versus what they actually pay.  That gap represents the wiggle room for providers to raise prices and safely predict consumers will not be outraged about it.

The IIA also trumpets the value of broadband in their study, entitled The Substantial Consumer Benefits of Broadband Connectivity for U.S. Households, for the benefit of their benefactors, who stand to gain substantially from broadband stimulus funding.  The IIA, one of the many astroturf organizations out there supported by the telecommunications industry, advocates for a “partnership” between private providers and government to deploy broadband.  In other words, they want the government to hand over tax dollars to private providers to construct broadband networks while preserving the completely deregulated “free market” broadband marketplace.  The “free market” concept now seems to include public taxpayer dollars subsidizing private business, all while providers demand no oversight or regulation to “hamper their innovation.”

Public money funneled to private business with no regulation or oversight = broadband goodness.

Still, it’s not all bad.  Even the IIA understands the obvious — providing faster broadband speeds not only enhances the perceived value of the product, consumers are also willing to happily pay higher prices to obtain it.  They didn’t study Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, consumption-based pricing, and other similar pricing schemes, presumably because the results would have shown dramatically dampened consumer enthusiasm.

What Is The Internet Innovation Alliance?

Who They Say They Are: “[A] broad-based coalition …committed to more widespread usage and availability of broadband through wise policy decisions.”
Who They Really Represent: Members include telecom business such as AT&T, and telecom trade associations such as the Information Technology Association of America.
What They Say They Do: “[A]ssist public policy makers to better understand new technologies and to promulgate smart policies that facilitate their growth.”
What They Really Want: To create a tiered Internet and allow broadband providers to charge web sites like Google and Yahoo! for the ability to reach their subscribers.
On the Web: http://www.internetinnovation.org/

The Internet Innovation Alliance runs a slick website dedicated to promoting broadband Internet policies that “will improve Americans’ lives.” While the Alliance claims to include “consumer advocates” in its coalition, no true consumer groups can be found anywhere in its membership list. But AT&T, one of the largest telephone companies in the country, is on the list. As recently as late 2004, the Internet Innovation Alliance (IIA) did seem to be on consumers’ side on the issue of network neutrality – the principle that your Internet service provider shouldn’t be able to block or interfere with your ability to access any content or use any services on the web.

Take a look at IIA’s scathing statement after SBC Communications revealed plans to charge fees to web-based telephone providers (also called Voice-over-Internet-Protocol, or VoIP): “SBC’s charging of higher fees to VoIP providers …is discriminatory in nature and is a dangerous first step toward eradicating the vast array of benefits services like VoIP will provide to consumers. VoIP promises great consumer benefits provided it remains unburdened by regulations and access fees…. SBC apparently missed the memo or chose to ignore it in the face of larger profits.”

So where was the outrage a year later when SBC head Ed Whitacre told Business Week magazine that broadband Internet providers should be allowed to charge fees not only to VoIP companies, but to any web-based company or service? “Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. …We [the telephone companies] and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!,” argued Whitacre.

This time, the Internet Innovation Alliance was nowhere to be found. Why? Maybe because SBC Communications was in the final stages of a merger with AT&T—one of IIA’s “member” groups. IIA does not disclose how much its “members” contribute to the organization, but in the case of AT&T, it appears to be enough to have bought IIA’s silence. — Common Cause

Stop the Cap! reader Lance wrote this afternoon letting us know Google has a project running for the next few weeks to ask ordinary Americans, you know, the ones who don’t have their own astroturf groups, slick lobbyists, and Re-Education literature, what you and I want from broadband stimulus funding and a national broadband plan.

Submit your ideas for a National Broadband Plan
Google and the New America Foundation have teamed up to launch this Google Moderator page, where you can submit and vote on ideas for what you think the Federal Communications Commission should include in its National Broadband Plan. Two weeks from now we’ll take the most popular and most innovative ideas and submit them to the official record at the FCC on your behalf.

So do you have any good ideas? Submit them today — and you just might help change the face of broadband in the United States.

The operative word there is “might.” Without a massive deluge from angry consumers, the killer bee swarm of lobbyists and other special interests will surround and fly away with the honey pot of federal broadband stimulus funding. But you can’t win if you don’t play, so let’s get busy.

Here was my submission, which you can choose to give a thumbs-up to if you support it:

“A clear prohibition on Internet overcharging schemes! No usage caps, speed throttles, and consumption-based tiered pricing. Net neutrality enshrined into law, open competition, even if it comes from municipalities, and the more fiber, the better!”

Finding submitted ideas is best achieved by using the Search box at the top of the Google Moderator page. You can find mine with a search for “net neutrality.”

Some of the ideas from ordinary consumers that are already getting plenty of support are excellent, common sense winners in our humble opinion, so be sure to vote “thumbs-up” for these as well:

• “Install broadband fiber as part of every federally-funded infrastructure project. Most of the cost of deployment is due to tearing up/repaving roads. Laying fiber during public works projects already underway would dramatically reduce costs.”
• “Force real competition in any given market for broadband services from the same types of provider to eliminate monopolies (i.e. multiple cable providers competing in the same market).”
• “Charging per-data-rate (EG: per gb) is a bad idea. You don’t get charged per hour you watch cable on top of your monthly subscription and additional channels, why should you pay per hour or per gb for access to the Internet?”
• “Stop the ability of private companies to block local governments from trying to deploy their own broadband solutions. There have been numerous examples of this, and it really stifles broadband expansion.”
• “Place residential broadband under the same regulations as other utilities. Require companies to publish their tariffs, and forbid hard caps. Require a portion of the proceeds to be invested into improving the infrastructure.”
• “Recognize that high-speed, reliable and unfiltered Internet access in the 21st century is a civil right on par with free speech and a right to an education and not a simple luxury for those who can afford it. More federal funding, fewer monopolies.”
• “Get ConnectedNation out of the loop. Funded by telecos and cablecos and are lobbying congress using false and misleading data.”

How to participate:

1. You need to have a registered Google account. You have one already if you use Gmail or other Google services.
2. Visit this page to find the question.
3. You will find a login link at the bottom. Click it and you can login or get a new Google account.
4. You will be shown a list of ideas submitted by others. They often appear randomly.
5. On the right side of your screen, you will see a place to approve (checkbox) or disapprove (an “x” in a box) of various ideas.
6. Vote for as many or as few as you like.

You can also submit your own idea.

The most popular ideas will be part of Google’s submission to the FCC.

Let us know what idea you are voting for and if you submitted any of your own in the Comments section.

Click on the "Comments" link shown circled to go directly to reader comments, and share your own views!

For new readers, you can get involved in the conversation by clicking the comments link found as part of the heading of every article here, or just click the headline and scroll down the bottom of your screen where you can find a place to share your thoughts!