Konrad Von Finckenstein

Konrad von Finckenstein, the head of Canada’s telecommunications regulator who initially rubber-stamped a Bell proposal to force Internet providers in Canada to charge usage-based pricing will not be back for a second term.

Von Finckenstein broke the news himself in a memo sent to staff at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, stating he would end his leadership of the CRTC when his five-year term concludes in January.

The CRTC has made uncomfortable headlines for Canada’s Conservative government, primarily by approving an Internet pricing plan submitted by Bell that would require virtually every Internet provider in Canada to end unlimited, flat rate pricing for broadband service.

The CRTC is hardly a hotbed of headline news for most Canadians.  The sleepy agency regulates telephone, broadband, television, and radio in the country with an increasingly light touch.  Ten years ago, the CRTC was regularly accused by some broadcasters of meddling in their private business.  These days the Commission, packed with members who formerly worked for the companies they now oversee, has gotten considerably more friendly with those they regulate.

That policy blew up in their faces when Bell got most of what it wanted in a wholesale pricing change that was so wide-reaching, it would potentially impact every Canadian Internet user.  Nearly a half-million of them registered their displeasure in a petition sponsored by Openmedia.ca.

Von Finckenstein’s resolute attitude towards the correctness of that decision was soon tempered when Industry Minister Tony Clement found himself overruling the CRTC in a Twitter message, telling Canadians the decision to impose usage-based billing “would not be allowed to stand.”

Opposition members in Parliament had a field day over Clement’s repeated distancing of the government from CRTC policies, particularly the one involving Internet pricing.

Liberal MP Marc Garneau seized on the fact Clement tweeted his intentions to the public at large before sharing them with von Finckenstein himself.  That, Garneau claimed, was the latest example of the government’s lack of clear policy on issues such as usage-based billing that has left the CRTC in what he called a “giant policy vacuum.”

The announcement by the CRTC chairman comes at the same time the Commission is finalizing a re-evaluation of its earlier decision on usage-based billing.

While hundreds of thousands of Canadians upset with the CRTC may be glad to see the back of von Finckenstein, his colleagues were considerably more generous with their praise:

Former CRTC executive Richard French credits Von Finckenstein, saying he sped up the commission’s decisions, improved the atmosphere around the offices and rarely left anyone guessing what he thought, “which I think is a virtue in a regulator.”

“He balanced the desire for more market forces with a recognition that for most of the industries in question, the Canadian market is sub-economic, it’s just not big enough to sustain enough players in this capital intensive business to create real competition so regulation is required,” French said Monday.

“He’s done an excellent job and he deserves the respect and appreciation of the industry and of the population,” French said.

Heritage Minister James Moore’s office issued a statement thanking von Finckenstein for his service as CRTC chair and said a process to select a new chair would be announced in the coming weeks.

AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner Cable, and nine other giant corporations selling cigarettes, shoes, shipping services, and jet aircraft have formed a new group demanding major cuts in the corporate tax rate that would allow some of them to repatriate billions in cash reserves stuffed in overseas banks to dodge U.S. taxes.

RATE — the Reducing America’s Taxes Equitably Coalition, says cutting the corporate tax rate is key to increased spending of accumulated corporate dollars in the United States.

“In a global economy where capital is highly mobile, it is simply harder to compete from America,” the companies’ executives wrote in a letter. “A lower corporate tax rate will boost investment in the U.S., bringing more American jobs, innovation and growth.”

But many of these corporations already pay less taxes than you do as a percentage of income.  Take Verizon, which shovels substantial profits through its British wireless partner Vodafone through Luxembourg, at an effective tax rate of around 10%.

Forbes reports last year Verizon had sales of $108 billion.  It’s pretax income was $11.8 billion.  The company paid just $1.2 billion in income taxes thanks to its $42 billion wireless joint venture with Vodafone, which Forbes reports “draws off much of Verizon’s income.”  But that is hardly a bad thing for Verizon.  Its effective tax rate: 10.5%.  Most middle class Americans pay twice or more that rate.  Verizon itself was surprised it only paid that much, because it ended up getting a federal tax refund for an overpayment amounting to $705 million.

In 2010, AT&T got hit harder, but still managed to eke out a winning year for shareholders.  AT&T enjoyed sales of $123 billion.  Its pretax income: $19 billion.  The company ended up paying $6.2 billion in income taxes for an effective tax rate of 32.4%.  But their executives got the benefit of every tax loophole available for their personal tax returns, made possible by AT&T’s generous subsidy of up to $14,000 a year for each executive officer to hire the best tax accountants around.

American companies already pay the second lowest taxes in the developed world, once all of the loopholes and deductions in the corporate tax code are accounted for. American corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash, so its unclear why more cash (in the form of tax breaks) would lead to more hiring, unless it involves adding more Washington, D.C. lobbyists, of course.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has issued new guidelines for consumers with complaints about their Internet Service Providers’ throttling practices that puts the burden of proof on the consumer to demonstrate an ISP is engaged in wrongful behavior before the CRTC will act.

The revised guidelines appear to come in response to complaints from consumers who have been subjected to dramatically reduced speeds when using Rogers Cable Internet service to play online games while also running file sharing software in the background. Rogers’ speed throttling technology appears to be unable to discriminate between game traffic, which is not subject to speed reductions, and file swapping traffic, which is.

The Canadian Gamers Organization filed a formal complaint with the CRTC this summer accusing Rogers of engaging in Network Neutrality violations.

The CRTC gave Rogers until today to fix the errant speed throttle or respond to the agency with an explanation for the delay.  As of this hour, Rogers appears not to have responded.

Last week, the CRTC began a crackdown of its own — against consumers bringing Internet complaints.  The CRTC modified the complaint procedure to instruct consumers to first work with their ISP and application developers to resolve any outstanding issues before filing complaints.  From the updated CRTC Guidelines:

How to make an Internet performance complaint

Before you complain to the CRTC about an Internet traffic management practice, you should first contact your Internet service provider to see if it can resolve the issue.

If your service provider doesn’t address your complaint to your satisfaction, and you believe that your service provider’s traffic management practices are not compliant with the CRTC’s policies, you can complain to the CRTC. Before doing this, make sure that you know your rights.

Rogers chokes the speed of undesireable peer to peer file traffic, but other applications like online gaming are also impacted. Consumers are complaining about the collateral damage.

What to include in your complaint

In your complaint, explain why you think your service provider’s traffic management practice doesn’t meet the requirements set out in their traffic management policy.  It is not necessary to provide technical details about the problem, but the CRTC needs enough information to understand the problem.  Please, clearly describe:

• What part of the traffic management policy you believe the provider has not followed
• When the problem occurred, and whether it is a recurring problem
• Which software program, or application, has been affected
• How the application has been affected
• The steps you’ve taken to try to resolve the issue with your service provider, including your provider’s response to your complaint

Consumer groups are not pleased the CRTC won’t engage directly in independent oversight of ISP speed throttling practices regardless of consumer complaints.

“We are not a consumer-protection agency,” the CRTC’s Denis Carmel was quoted as saying back in July.

“The CRTC must start enforcing its own policies,” says Canadian Gamers Organization co-founder Jason Koblovsky. “The CRTC needs to put a plan forth to ensure that regular audits are done on Internet Providers rather than relying solely on consumer complaints. We are asking the public to tell the CRTC that enough is enough: the Commission needs to take a much more proactive role in ensuring that Internet providers play by the rules. We are ready to act politically and force a solution here if need be.”

Koblovsky expanded his views on the subject in a blog entry:

We find this policy update to be more of an insult to consumers, and puts the responsibility of monitoring ISP’s use of [speed throttles] directly on the back of consumers. This is not acceptable by any means, and none of the policy recommendations we made that were thrown out by the CRTC in our initial complaint were taken into consideration, or for that matter seriously by the CRTC. This is a slap in the face to what we have been fighting for, and that is the CRTC has the responsibility to follow through, monitor and enforce its policies.

[…] Not one ISP has been found by the CRTC to be acting against net neutrality policy since they acted on this in 2009 with several complaints sent to the CRTC by consumers being dismissed due to lack of evidence over years of enforcement failure by the commission. There is no indication here that the CRTC is going to be dealing with a very high evidentiary thresh hold put on the consumer to launch a CRTC investigation in this policy update. All this update does is provide information on CRTC complaints procedures that are already in place, and consumers are already abiding by.

[…] Maybe it’s time we start acting politically on this issue instead, drop the CRTC from the picture to force the CRTC through legislation to listen to consumers, and start putting forth a much better effort on their responsibility to the public to enforce their policies. Or better yet, start billing the CRTC for our efforts on each complaint we become a part of.

Read this excellent analysis of game throttling and how Canadian ISPs master the art of Internet Overcharging.

Canadians looking for more competitive wireless prices and faster service may think they’re going to get them if they sign on to a new campaign sponsored by Rogers Communications that calls on the Canadian government to eliminate spectrum “set-asides” for the country’s smaller wireless competitors.  Rogers wants those frequencies for itself, critics charge, and they have the resources to outbid any new player in the country’s wireless market.

From Rogers’ “I Want My LTE” Website:

[…] There are some who are supporting a Federal Government regulation that would limit who can have access to the spectrum. Such regulation would exclude select companies from the upcoming auction to license the 700 MHz spectrum band. The outcome of this auction will have a major impact on deploying LTE across Canada. If a decision is made that prevents certain companies, including Rogers, from participating in the spectrum auction, it would be a recipe for leaving Canada behind the rest of the world, stalling Canadian innovation and limiting who can access LTE.

The website offers a pre-written plea to policymakers in government to allow for an open bidding process for the forthcoming 700MHz frequencies many wireless companies crave for their robust performance.

The problem is, according to industry observers, if a wide-open, no-limits auction takes place, it’s a virtual certainty Canada’s largest wireless companies — Bell, Telus, and Rogers, would walk away with most, if not all of the auctioned spectrum.  Even worse, it will stall competition that will lead to lower prices.

“The future of affordable wireless rates is at risk, not the future of long-term evolution (LTE) networks,” said Chief Operating Officer Stewart Lyons. “Mobilicity has helped bring down the cost of wireless in Canada significantly and we need to augment our limited amount of spectrum to ensure affordable pricing continues.”

“[The] big 3 wireless carriers have more spectrum than they need and will stop at nothing to dress up and misrepresent their hidden agenda of eliminating competition so they can raise their rates back up again,” he added.

The government is not planning to ban Rogers and the others from the spectrum sale.  They just want to set aside some frequencies for bidding among the smaller, newer competitors.  But even that is too much for Rogers, who has bad memories from the last spectrum auction that allowed those competitors to become established in the first place.

Today, new cell service providers like Wind Mobile, Mobilicity and Quebecor’s Videotron are forcing larger carriers to reduce prices or lose business.

Fido is actually Rogers under a different name.

For some Canadians, wireless bills have dropped a lot since the competition arrived.  Some are leaving Rogers in favor of better prices elsewhere.

Andy Lehrer from Toronto had a cellular plan with Fido, an ostensibly independent cell phone company that is, in fact, owned outright by Rogers Communications.  Lehrer was paying Fido $150 a month for his Blackberry voice and data plan.  Today, with one of the new competitors, he pays $44 a month for a plan that offers more data and talk time.

Although new competitors still have just under 5 percent of the Canadian market, the price differences have become too enormous to ignore in many cases, especially if a customer is willing to give a new carrier a break as it works through growing pains.

Lehrer told the Globe & Mail his cellular reception is poorer, but not bad enough to make him switch back to Rogers’ Fido.

Convergence Consulting Group Ltd. notes the price disparities mean savings as much as 58 percent with new competitors’ combined voice and data plans.  For data services alone, new providers charge as much as 83 percent less.

If Rogers and the two others head home from spectrum auctions with everything up for bid, it will assuredly stall competition and help protect today’s high wireless prices.  Rogers, Bell, and Telus have never seen fit to undercut each other, adopting a rising prices raise all balance sheets-approach at doing business.  But scrappy new entrants like Wind and Mobilicity are willing to slash prices to attract customers.  But nobody will buy service if those companies cannot obtain necessary spectrum to actually compete.

Regardless of the outcome, North America in general has a long way to go to find the lower wireless prices commonplace abroad.

The network envisioned with the help of a $30 million federal broadband grant, now in jeopardy.

A consortium of 15 rural north Florida counties awarded a $30 million federal broadband grant to provide a “middle-mile” wireless broadband network for the region has spent almost $7 million of its federal grant on consultants, design engineers, land acquisition and staffing without breaking ground on a single construction project.

In February 2010, the Obama Administration announced the broadband grant to deliver rural Florida residents a way to finally obtain high-speed access to the Internet within three years.  Now, a year-and-a-half later, not a single tower of the wireless network has been built, residents have been told they will never receive Internet service directly from the project, and one of the key members of the North Florida Broadband Authority charged with constructing the network has called one of the major contractors “incompetent.”

Last week, federal officials suspended the grant amid growing accusations of wasteful spending and lack of oversight.

NFBA was supposed to be building a wireless wholesale-access network across 15 counties that would deliver ISPs, government agencies, libraries, and other institutional users packages of 6, 12, 25, 60, 150Mbps or faster service, linked with fiber to Orlando and Tampa.

Although media coverage touted the project as delivering improved access to residential customers in Baker, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Jefferson, Lafayette, Levy, Madison, Putnam, Suwannee, Taylor, Union and Wakulla counties, the NFBA project will not directly make broadband service available to consumers.  Would be residential customers will have to hope an incumbent Internet Service Provider chooses to participate and resells access to the network across the region.  Otherwise, those taxpayers will only be able to use the network they paid for at a local library.

That is, if the project ever gets completed.

To date, financial statements from the NFBA reflect the biggest checks paid to-date have gone to architecture and design consultants, which have received a total of more than $3.37 million dollars.  In contrast, NFBA has paid $0.00 for on-site construction and site work as of the end of the last quarter.  Money has also been spent on “Administrative and Legal Expenses” amounting to more than $863,000, and $1.54 million has been spent on property appraisal, acquisition, and expenses related to establishing rights-of-way.

When questions began to be raised about why the project had spent so much on so little, the fur began to fly, according to the North Florida Herald:

Christopher Thurow of Bradford County, accused [contractor] Government Services Group of being “incompetent.” Government Services Group answers to the Authority and is in charge of managing the project.

Then Rapid Systems, one of the project’s engineering companies, began making accusations of not getting paid. But GSG pointed to what it said was inadequate documentation by Rapid Systems and not following payment procedures.

Adding to the controversy was that GSG had been let go from managing the Florida Rural Broadband Authority (FRBA), a program similar to the North Florida Broadband Authority.

Multiple FRBA meetings were canceled, and the project was behind schedule, said Rick Marcum, chairman of FRBA.

“We felt like we needed to move in a different direction,” he said.

Since then, Government Services Group has filed a lawsuit against FRBA, saying there is a breach of contract.

At the North Florida Broadband Authority, some members allege a conflict of interest between GSG and Capital Solutions, which was contracted by GSG to oversee the administration of the grant money.

The apparent conflict comes from the accusation that Government Services Group CEO Robert Sheets is 25-percent owner of Meridian Services group, where Lisa Blair is CEO and president. Blair also is the CEO of Capital Solutions.

NFBA project members seem content to blame most of the problems on others, as well as on a sudden discovery their initial network design would not meet the performance requirements of potential wholesale customers.  That meant a wholesale re-design of the project into a “interconnected-ring network” design topology.  The rest of the delay, according to the NFBA, was because the project was sitting around waiting for government approvals:

This entire process (which included design re-evaluation, engineering services procurement, and network redesign) was carried out over a period of two to three quarters, which was the period of time designated in the original Baseline Plan for the turnkey link design phase as well as for subsequent equipment procurement, site acquisition, and pre-deployment activities. Additional variance from the Baseline Plan resulted substantial delays that were incurred awaiting wage-rate determinations (more than 3 months), awaiting a response to a waiver request to allow eligibility of Long term Operational leases (requested process in December, 2010, AAR submitted in April 2011, received in June, 2011); and comments from the Program Office on a Route Change Request (2 months).

That explanation did not pass muster with grant administrators at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the federal agency overseeing broadband grants.

“NFBA has experienced a number of external and internal delays on its project and, as a result, NTIA has serious concerns regarding the project’s long-term viability and, in the short-term, its ability to implement and deploy the proposed project during the grant award period,” the NTIA wrote in a statement.

As a result, the NTIA has suspended the program, ending all work, pending some sort of oversight agreement with the NFBA being concluded before Oct. 10.

The NTIA wants all invoices and disbursements from the $30 million grant approved directly by them before any more money is spent on the project.

To date, filings indicate the project has no signed customers of any kind, institutional, commercial or otherwise.  NFBA anticipates it will “outline service to 308 anchor institutions by project closeout,” with “outline” at this point defined as “offer.”

However, NFBA claims to have received a “Commitment Letter for a substantial monthly service commitment from one of our last mile partners, and we expect to receive additional Commitment Letters over the next quarter as we continue to actively engage last mile providers in the network region.”

Last-mile partners are the ones that will ultimately deliver service to residential and business customers.

Dixie County resident and Stop the Cap! reader Jimmy Dixon, who alerted us to the latest developments, calls it “a good government program hijacked by greedy consultants and incompetent local officials.”

“This was supposed to be about serving the unserved — we the people — and instead the project will only sell to government buildings and libraries, and whatever ISPs choose to buy access,” he writes. “But when an ISP won’t sell DSL to your home today, nothing about this grant will make them sell it tomorrow.”

Indeed, Dixon says the local phone company in his area continues to have no plans to wire his neighborhood for DSL, grant or no grant.

“They frankly told me it did not make economic sense to extend DSL here, and unless the government directly defrayed those expenses, they never will service us,” Dixon shares. “But I guess until recently it was just fine to line the pockets of consultants with millions in taxpayer dollars to not deliver service to anyone else, either.”

“We’re all in the same boat, and it’s sinking fast.”

Read the special investigative report published by the North Florida Herald here.