The city of Binghamton, NY offers free Wi-Fi service to its residents

The city of Binghamton, in southern New York, had an innovative idea in 2008 — to offer citizens free wireless access to the Internet across the entire downtown region, with the help of a private-public partnership.  More than 20 “access points” were installed by the city and Plexicomm, LLC, a private partner in the venture.  The Binghamton WiFi service launched last summer and has caught on like wildfire.

Binghamton WiFi Repeater helps extend the network

In addition to its popularity, which has tripled since 2008 with more than 82,000 logins, it’s also affordable.  The city of Binghamton pays just $3,650 a month on a two year contract, with some of that cost recouped with advertising that users see when first logging into the service.  The state also covered 50% of the cost for the first year.  It’s also unique, because the city encourages area businesses and residents to consider helping spread the reach of the network with the purchase and installation of their own wireless repeater, priced at $199.  Wi-Fi signals are generally better outside than indoors, but businesses can add the wireless repeater, placing it near a window or door, and make that signal available to customers located well within the building.

Apartment owners and even charitable consumers who believe in sharing the good fortune of free Internet are purchasing and installing repeaters to improve reception for their tenants or neighbors.  In addition to the “viral network” of Internet enthusiasts sharing and expanding the network independently, the city has also been able to afford officially extending the network with additional rooftop wireless “access points.”

The project has enthusiastic support from city officials, who continue to dedicate resources to it even while other city services come under review for budget cuts.

It also allows the city to get important civic and public information out to city residents who use the service.

Binghamton’s Wi-Fi business model is based on the premise that the most successful Wi-Fi public-private partnerships are free and open to the public, sustained with “captive advertising” as customers login to the service.  Customers are forced to view ads for 15-30 seconds while logging in, giving advertisers a better chance of having their messages seen by the online user.

The service is also not designed to directly compete with private providers, which include Time Warner Cable’s Road Runner service and Verizon DSL.  Although the maximum speed of the network is comparable to DSL – up to 3Mbps downstream and 768kbps upstream, Wi-Fi can suffer signal-related slowdowns as well as congestion.  The service is designed for web page browsing and e-mail, and light access of higher bandwidth applications such as online multimedia.

Several videos detailing the ongoing development of Binghamton WiFi can be found below the jump.

… Continue Reading

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski

In a dramatic departure from the former Federal Communications Commission’s largely “hear no evil, see no evil” oversight, Julius Genachowski, the new Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, is a downright activist.

Genachowski, over the course of several interviews given this week, has made it clear that he sees major problems in the American broadband industry — it’s too expensive, it’s not competitive enough, and its widespread availability is absolutely critical to the economic success of the United States in coming years.  He’s made it clear broadband will be the most important issue before the agency for the immediate future.

“It’s tremendously important. I’m convinced that broadband is our generation’s major infrastructure challenge, akin to what railroads were, what the highway system was and universal electricity. This is the platform that will determine whether the country can compete in the 21st century. If we get this right, our broadband infrastructure will be an enduring engine for job creation, economic growth, investment, innovation, so it’s essential,” Genachowski said in an interview published today in The Wall Street Journal.

Although short on specifics in most of the interviews given to date, Genachowski has signaled his interest in preserving the concepts of Net Neutrality — providing open and equal treatment of Internet traffic without favoring or throttling traffic.

“The openness of the Internet has been a big driver of that. And it is important that we preserve that openness in order to drive investment, innovation, job creation and economic growth,” he said.

With the departure of the former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin earlier this year, Genachowski will mirror much of the Obama Administration policies and their telecommunications agenda.

Martin’s FCC, with a Republican majority, exercised a deregulatory approach to oversight, and was frequently criticized for not protecting consumer interests.  But Martin did routinely clash with the nation’s cable television operators, in his unsuccessful effort to force them to provide a-la-carte cable television programming tiers.  Martin’s leadership also brought about heightened oversight of “decency” policies impacting broadcasters, and resulted in substantial fines for radio and television stations that violated language or decency standards.  Most agency watchers summarize the last eight years of telecommunications policy as generally industry friendly, particularly to telephone companies, and mildly hostile to cable.  The Commission also sought to permit an increase in ownership concentration of the nation’s radio and television services, and approved mergers routinely, including one between former competing satellite radio providers XM and Sirius.

Genachowski’s FCC is expected to substantially change its regulatory approach, but only over time.

Although it will maintain an activist approach to broadband issues, Genachowski believes a top-down ‘agency makeover’ is required to prepare the FCC to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

“There are real challenges given the state of the infrastructure at the agency. As an example, there are literally millions of pages of documents that should be available to the public, and technically are because people can come in and look them up, that aren’t in digital form at all. They’re in paper. Some of these are historical documents, but there’s a huge resource downstairs in the pubic reading room that has something like 7,000 linear feet of paper that we really do need to digitize and put online. There’s a lot of paper that is online but not in machine-readable format, it’s not searchable,” he said.

Most FCC watchers believe the agency will move forward on several issues in the next 12-24 months:

1. A review of the Universal Service Fund (USF), which collects several dollars from every telephone customer in the United States to help underwrite and defray expenses of the nation’s most rural and disadvantaged telephone subscribers.  The USF has been roundly criticized for collecting an enormous amount of money, and squandering it on projects that go well beyond the Fund’s original intent, resulting in considerable waste, fraud, and abuse.  Genachowski’s FCC will be asked to consider using USF money to deploy and/or underwrite broadband service in areas not economically viable enough for private companies to provide service.
2. A review of the state of the competitiveness in the broadband, telephone, and wireless telephone industries, with particular emphasis on the latter.  Wireless phone companies like Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility are already under scrutiny for their exclusivity agreements with telephone equipment manufacturers, and their attempts to hold consumers’ hostage by refusing to permit them to reactivate their phones on other company’s networks.
3. A review of applications and filings by broadcasters relating to low power radio and television, improving reception for digital over the air television signals, indecency complaints, and mergers and acquisitions in the industry.

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!

The Bell Beavers have been lying to Canadians for at least a year about the speed of their broadband connections through Bell.  Despite assertions in advertising that Bell Internet does not experience “slowdowns,” the company admitted Tuesday it intentionally does slow down certain broadband applications by up to 98.5% for 9.5  hours a day.

Appearing before commissioners of the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission hearing on bandwidth management, Jonathan Daniels, Bell’s vice-president of regulatory law, told commissioners peer-to-peer file transfers are “throttled,” or reduced in speed, for up to 10 hours daily.

In Ontario and Quebec, speeds are reduced to 256kbps (kilobits per second) between 6pm-1am, representing a 98.5% reduction in the maximum speed of 16Mbps offered as part of Bell’s Internet Max 16 service.  During dinner time, starting at 4:30pm-6pm, speeds are reduced to 512kbps.  Even those up late to avoid the throttle will still encounter it between 1am-2am, when speeds are also reduced to 512kbps.

Although Bell has never denied throttling users’ speeds, the company clarified the extent of the throttling and its specifics for the CRTC yesterday.  Daniels promised the company would post this information on its website soon, so customers are fully informed about the practice before signing up for service.

Bell defended the practice, extending not only to its own customers but also to customers of independent Canadian ISPs who obtain their broadband access from Bell’s wholesale bandwidth division.  Bell claims it was not satisfied with simply raising prices or placing usage limits on its service — the company also felt it necessary to start reducing the speeds of “problem applications” on its network.  Bell lobbied the CRTC to endorse Bell’s bandwidth management plan and also called on the commission to apply any regulatory changes not only to its own DSL service, but also for competing technologies like cable, fiber, and even wireless broadband.  Inclusion of the latter technology would establish a “lowest common denominator” broadband standard for Canada, where all players would be permitted to limit and throttle usage based on the least capable competing technology.

Independent Internet providers across Canada complain their wholesale access from Bell not only faces speed throttles, but also usage based pricing, which effectively could render most uncompetitive.  They have asked the commission to force Bell to stop throttling their wholesale accounts and permit them to establish whatever bandwidth management technologies are appropriate.  Bell dismissed that notion, claiming that unless independent providers use the same policies Bell does, demand on its network from its wholesale accounts would create congestion problems for Bell’s own retail customers.

CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein asked why Bell is the only ISP in Canada that throttles peer-to-peer downloads, while most other ISPs only throttle uploads.  Daniels claimed that downloads are a bigger problem for the Bell network, and that most cable ISPs engaged in throttling are dealing with a network much more sensitive to upload activity.

The issue is hotly debated across Canada because much of the network that Bell and other providers utilize for Internet connectivity was built with Canadian taxpayer dollars.  Because the network was built with public funds, Bell cannot refuse requests from competitors to purchase access to their network at wholesale prices, which are set by Canadian regulators.

The wholesale price for Canadian residential customers with a 5Mbps connection starts at $19.50 per month.  An additional charge for connecting an independent network to Bell’s network is levied, along with a specified amount of bandwidth consumption.  A wholesale account on Bell’s “High Speed Access” network, which doesn’t engage in traffic throttling, is not regulated and is currently priced at $40 a month for a 6Mbps connection.  ISPs are required to install more of their own network management equipment, making access to this higher level of service an expensive proposition for both the ISP and the residential customer.  Few ISPs choose the “High Speed Access” network because of the cost.

The CRTC became involved after getting complaints from Bell’s wholesale customers who suddenly discovered their own customers were being speed throttled.  Last November, the commission found such throttling by Bell was permitted, primarily because they throttled every customer’s speeds — retail and wholesale.  But a decision to hold hearings into bandwidth management was deemed necessary, and the result was a week of hearings that wrapped up Tuesday.